Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip link: add sub-command to view and change DSA master

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip link: add sub-command to view and change DSA master
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:23:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220909112349.gyrqjojo6f4dhzdt@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YxrYrhSRayY03ahF@d3>

On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:09:50PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > So are we or are we not in the clear with IFLA_DSA_MASTER and
> > "ip link set ... type dsa master ..."? What does being in the clear even
> > mean technically, and where can I find more details about the policy
> > which you just mentioned? Like is it optional or mandatory, was there
> > any public debate surrounding the motivation for flagging some words,
> > how is it enforced, are there official exceptions, etc?
> 
> There are more details in
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, end of ยง4.

Thanks for the pointer. So it says that if DSA was introduced in 2020 or
later, a master should have probably been named a host controller or
something of that kind. Which is probably reasonable in this context.
But I don't have the time and energy at my disposal to transition DSA to
an inclusive naming convention, at least not in a way that wouldn't then
be detrimential/confusing in the short term to the user base. So I'll
keep using IFLA_DSA_MASTER, my reading of it is that it's ok.