Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > 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.
Christian, are you already working on an extended version of your bus error patch (with tx/rx error counters via netlink). If not, I could jump in as I do have some time left today (and tomorrow). Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
