[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100629.095932.186303178.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: bhutchings@...arflare.com
Cc: sgruszka@...hat.com, amit.salecha@...gic.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, amwang@...hat.com,
anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] qlcnic: fail when try to setup unsupported
features
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:41:24 +0100
> 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.
I think this is necessary too, otherwise we'll need to have N copies of
ethtool_ops in a driver in this situation.
--
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