[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4966CB59.4090202@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:58:17 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: bhutchings@...arflare.com, rick.jones2@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make possible speeds known to ethtool
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com> wrote:
>> The person who added this should have used the new flags interface, and
>> added ETH_FLAG_GRO right next to the pre-existing ETH_FLAG_LRO.
>>
>> It is incorrect to add new ioctls just to toggle a boolean value.
>
> Well you missed my earlier explanation. GRO is a stack flag,
> it's not something we want the device drivers to touch at all.
>
> The generic flags interface appears to be designed for flags
> that the device driver directly controls, such as LRO. That's
> why it is inappropriate for GRO, which like GSO is entirely done
> in software.
Nope, the generic flags interface is for any time you have a boolean
flag to control on a per-interface basis.
The generic flags interface was created precisely because it is silly to
keep creating _two_ ethtool sub-ioctls (get, set) just for single
boolean flags.
For generic net stack flags outside the driver's control, that can
easily be added to ethtool_{get,set}_flags() overriding or ignoring
whatever the driver may have done.
Jeff
--
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