[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <EDC0E76513226749BFBC9C3FB031318F0173FF8650@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:33:24 -0700
From: "Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for
ethtool application.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:27 PM
>To: Wyborny, Carolyn
>Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for
>ethtool application.
>
>On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:50 -0700, Carolyn Wyborny wrote:
>> This patch completes the user space implementation of the private
>> flags inteface in ethtool. Using -b/-B options.
>[...]
>
>Private flags are supposed to be named (string set ETH_SS_PRIV_FLAGS).
>ethtool should only support getting and setting flags by name, not
>number. That way people can actually remember what the flags do and
>their scripts won't break when the driver changes flag numbers.
>
>Ben.
>
>--
>Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
>Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
>They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
Ok, makes sense. Do you want a private flags implementation or do you agree with Michal on extending ETHTOOL_[GS]FEATURES?
Thanks,
Carolyn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists