Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:56:19 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 13/17] ethtool: add standard notification
 handler
Message-ID: <20191011055619.GC2901@nanopsycho>
References: <cover.1570654310.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <ac2fef494116db9d4679f4501f1be6a7898ef724.1570654310.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <20191010152559.GA2994@nanopsycho>
 <20191010181743.GF22163@unicorn.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191010181743.GF22163@unicorn.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:17:43PM CEST, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:25:59PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:59:40PM CEST, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:

[...]


>> >+
>> >+/* generic notification handler */
>> >+static void ethnl_std_notify(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int cmd,
>> 
>> Better "common" comparing to "standard", I believe.
>
>That's similar to ethnl_std_parse(), the idea is that this is the
>standard handler for notifications which are triggered without
>additional data and the message is the same as reply to corresponding
>"GET" request (which is generated by the standard ethnl_get_doit()
>handler). Notifications for actions and notifications for SET commands
>which cannot be generated this standard way will have to use their own
>(nonstandard) handler.

So "default"? The "standard" sounds rather weird to me. It isn't any
"standard" :)