On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:28:37AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Crystal Kolipe <kolipe.c@exoticsilicon.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:17:22PM +0100, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 08:26:46AM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> > > > With this first version of the code, these strings are unique.  Do we
> > > > intend to guarantee this when the names are expanded to include further
> > > > chipset information?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You're right, the display strings can't be unique,
> > > unfortunately. Furthermore, currently they are not stable with time.
> > > 
> > > > If not, should we mention this somewhere to avoid userland code relying
> > > > on behaviour that will change later on?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sure. Something like this?
> > 
> > Looks good, but I think we should s/no/nor
> > 
> > Cc'ed Jason for a second opinion on this.
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- a/libsndio/sioctl_open.3
> > > +++ b/libsndio/sioctl_open.3
> > > @@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ The
> > >  .Fa display
> > >  attribute contains an optional free-format string providing additional
> > >  hints about the control, like the hardware model, or the units.
> > > +It is neither unique at a given time, no stable with time.
> > 
> >  +It is neither unique at a given time, nor stable with time.
> > 
> > ( Maybe s/with/over/ as well? )
> > 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that sentence means.

Maybe:

It is neither unique at a given time, nor stable _over_ time.

would be better English than:

It is neither unique at a given time, nor stable _with_ time.