[ Ugh, as other have lameneted, I was not copied on this thread so I could not respond in real time. Let me be another to say, please copy all impacted lists and stakeholders on patches. ] On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 11:08 +0200, Greg KH wrote: [..] > > > Several names were suggested (like peer bus, which was shot down > > because in > > parts on the English speaking world the peerage means nobility), > > finally > > "ancillary bus" was arrived at by consensus of not hating it. > > "not hating it", while sometimes is a good thing, for something that > I > am going to have to tell everyone to go use, I would like to at least > "like it". And right now I don't like it... > > I think we should go back to "virtual" for now, or, if the people who > didn't like it on your "internal" reviews wish to participate here > and > defend their choice, I would be glad to listen to that reasoning. I came out strongly against "virtual" because there is nothing virtual about these devices, they are functional partitions of the parent device. Also, /sys/devices/virtual is already the land of unparented / software-defined devices. Having /sys/devices/virtual alongside that is not quite a namespace collision, but it's certainly namespace confusion in my view. I proposed other names, the team came back with "ancillary" which was not my first choice, but perfectly suitable. In deference to the people doing the work I let their choice stand. It is an uncomfortable position being a middle tier reviewer of pre- release patch sets when the patch set can still be de-railed by preference nits. A lack of deference makes it a difficult job to convince people "hey my internal review will save you some time upstream", when in practice they can see the opposite is true.
