From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756803AbZEUUdX (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 16:33:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755120AbZEUUdI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 16:33:08 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:34410 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755081AbZEUUdG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 16:33:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090521.133304.10307675.davem@davemloft.net> To: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Cc: linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fenlason@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ieee1394: eth1394: use "firewire%d" instead of "eth%d" as interface name From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <4A15B5FE.3070207@s5r6.in-berlin.de> References: <20090521.123403.13286908.davem@davemloft.net> <4A15B5FE.3070207@s5r6.in-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.2.51 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stefan Richter Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:13:50 +0200 > But I mildly disagree with the notion that the kernel can't start off > with more qualification of the names than merely ensuring their > uniqueness. Or the other way around: Even an entirely meaningless > prefix would be better than "eth..", or no prefix if that's possible, > because eth suspiciously sounds like Ethernet with which the misnamed > RFC 2734 driver eth1394 has very little to do. Even the driver source file is named "ethXXX"! All of the macros in the driver are named ETH*. The eth1394hdr looks eerily similar to a real ethernet header except that it lacks a source MAC address. It's addressing information plus a 16-bit (wow, why that size huh?) protocol field. A lot like ethernet. At the very least, it's related and similar. So there is really nothing inappropriate about eth* naming. > However, how mild my disagreement is should be apparent from the fact > that I didn't bother to suggest changing it before now, in 2009. :-) You have more to lose by changing this now (breaking existing systems, and yes I did see the hack workaround you posted) instead of fixing userspace to make whatever indications you deem appropriate.