[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1263238353.2781.38.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:32:33 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com,
Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
Luca Deri <deri@...p.org>,
Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 3/5] ethtool: Introduce n-tuple filter
programming support
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 20:49 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> From: PJ Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
>
> This patchset enables the ethtool layer to program n-tuple
> filters to an underlying device. The idea is to allow capable
> hardware to have static rules applied that can assist steering
> flows into appropriate queues.
[...]
> @@ -500,6 +529,8 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
> int (*set_rxnfc)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_rxnfc *);
> int (*flash_device)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_flash *);
> int (*reset)(struct net_device *, u32 *);
> + int (*set_rx_ntuple)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_rx_ntuple *);
> + int (*get_rx_ntuple)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_rx_ntuple *, void *);
> };
> #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>
[...]
It it really necessary to add new driver operations? It seems to me
that it would be preferable to extend {get,set}_rx_nfc() and have the
ethtool common code convert between the ethtool_rxnfc and
ethtool_rx_ntuple structures. Does that seem possible?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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