[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100630.160615.179276491.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: bruce.w.allan@...el.com
Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/8] e1000e: cleanup ethtool loopback
setup code
From: "Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:41:19 -0700
> 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?
I only have strong feelings about the kernel side, and an ETH_FLAG_* seems
best for this since other devices will have this feature too.
I don't think overloading parts of ethtool_cmd is wise.
--
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