[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100629170025.7a130e28@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:00:25 +0200
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.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 Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:41:24 +0100
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> 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.
I thought about driver custom ethtool_ops::set_flags in that case.
> 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.
What about call from net/core/ethtool.c ?
Stanislaw
--
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