netdev - RE: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/8] e1000e: cleanup ethtool loopback setup code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:41:19 -0700
From:	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/8] e1000e: cleanup ethtool loopback setup
	code

On Friday, June 18, 2010 10:15 PM, David Miller wrote:
> I've applied this series however:
> 
> 1) Please address Ben's concerns about turning EEE on by default
>    given that standardization is not complete yet.
> 
> 2) I hate module parameters, I'd rather you create a new ethtool
>    feature bit and thus allow the setting to be modified at run
>    time.  Please create a new ethtool control flag, and remove
>    this module option.
> 
> Thanks.

Hi Dave,

I've been looking into your request number 2 above (as a reminder, it had to do with a patch I submitted that added a module parameter to e1000e in order to enable/disable Energy Efficient Ethernet for a particular type of adapter).

For this new ethtool feature bit/flag for EEE, would you prefer it be set via:
1) the generic parameter setting option (e.g. -s ethX [eee on|off]),
2) yet another new show/change option pair, or
3) a new option that can set this new feature and be expandable to future features that are likewise not related to existing ethtool options (e.g. -F [eee on|off] [whizbang on|off])?

For #2 or #3, it makes sense to use ethtool_op_[g|s]et_flags with new ETH_FLAG_<feature> and NETIF_F_<feature> defines, but #1 can be implemented that way or by using remaining reserved elements of struct ethtool_cmd - if your preference is for #1, would you prefer it be implemented with the former or latter?

Thanks,
Bruce.--
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