[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1277822484.2112.19.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:41:24 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc: Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] qlcnic: fail when try to setup unsupported
features
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 15:18 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 16:14 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> [...]
> > My plan is something like that:
> >
> > static const struct ethtool_ops my_ethtool_ops = {
> > .get_flags = ethtool_op_get_flags,
> > .set_flags = ethtool_op_set_flags,
> > .supported_flags = ETH_FLAG_LRO
> > }
> >
> > Plus op->supported_flags check in ethtool_op_set_flags. That will allow
> > to define flags per driver. There is also possible to add supported_flags
> > to netdev, but I would like to avoid that - in such case drivers can use
> > custom .set_flags function.
>
> Sounds good to me.
On second thoughts, this is not going work - supported_flags may need to
be different for different chips handled by the same driver. In fact,
this is already the case in sfc. So I think you should do what I
suggested previously - add a supported_flags parameter to
ethtool_op_set_flags.
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