[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487D1C4C.9080103@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:53:16 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>
CC: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ethtool: Expand ethtool_cmd.speed to 32 bits
Brandon Philips wrote:
> Introduce the speed_hi field to ethtool_cmd, using the reserved space,
> to expand the speed field to 2^32 Megabits/second.
>
> Making this field expansion now gives us plenty of time to fix up the
> user-space pieces that use SIOCETHTOOL before hardware faster than 64
> Gb/s is available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Philips <bphilips@...e.de>
>
> ---
> include/linux/ethtool.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/ethtool.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/ethtool.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/ethtool.h
> @@ -27,9 +27,24 @@ struct ethtool_cmd {
> __u8 autoneg; /* Enable or disable autonegotiation */
> __u32 maxtxpkt; /* Tx pkts before generating tx int */
> __u32 maxrxpkt; /* Rx pkts before generating rx int */
> - __u32 reserved[4];
> + __u16 speed_hi;
> + __u16 reserved2;
> + __u32 reserved[3];
> };
I certainly agree with the concept of preparing for faster NICs. Are
bits in that structure sufficiently precious to go the split route, or
would it be cleaner to just grab a contiguous 32 bits from the structure?
rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists