Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> Two nitpicks: >> >> 1. I don't feel really comfortable with the naming of "bus-error" itself. > > Well... > >> When i would see "bus-error 1" in my ip link show i would be confused, if my >> CAN controller currently has currently a bus-error or not. > > You will not see "bus-error 1" but: > > $ ip -details -statistics link show can0 > 2: can0: <NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP,ECHO> mtu 16 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 10 > link/can > can <TRIPLE-SAMPLING,BUS-ERROR> state ERROR-ACTIVE restart-ms 100 > > Would "bus-errors" be clearer (with a trailing "s")?
Yes, at least. > >> IMO it should be named like "enable-bus-errors" or "enable-berr" or >> "berr-msgs" or "bus-err-msgs" or something like this. > > What about "bus-error-reporting" ? I didn't dare to propose a 19 char string ;-) But this would fit best IMO. Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
