[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2ecfecd-997e-40b5-9478-c7b240bf0a21@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:03:17 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/3] ethtool: Extend cable testing interface
with result source information
> @@ -573,15 +573,25 @@ enum {
> ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_UNSPEC,
> ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_PAIR, /* u8 ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_PAIR_ */
> ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE, /* u8 ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_ */
> + ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_SRC, /* u32 */
Please follow the convention of given the prefix of values,
ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_INF_SRC_ in the comment. I also wounder if a u8 would
be more in keeping with the API. _PAIR and _CODE are u8.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists