[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CB88FD74.2A201%anirban.chakraborty@qlogic.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:28:03 -0700
From: Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dept-NX Linux NIC Driver
<Dept_NX_Linux_NIC_Driver@...gic.com>,
Manish Chopra <manish.chopra@...gic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ethtool: Added a field fw dump_state
On 3/16/12 2:22 PM, "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 14:10 -0700, Anirban Chakraborty wrote:
>>
>> On 3/16/12 11:27 AM, "Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 10:58 -0700, Anirban Chakraborty wrote:
>> >> +
>> >> struct ethtool_dump {
>> >> __u32 cmd;
>> >> __u32 version;
>> >> __u32 flag;
>> >> __u32 len;
>> >> __u8 data[0];
>> >> + __u8 dump_state;
>> >
>> >Don't be ridiculous.
>>
>> Yeah I know, especially when there is a flag field already present
>>there.
>> The only
>> reason, we considered for adding it is to keep the backward
>>compatibility
>> of scripts.
>> Right now, the flag field sets/gets the dump level of fw. If we use it
>>to
>> control the
>> dump state, then it would break the existing scripts, if there are any.
>>
>
>You missed the point... data[0] must be the last element in the
>structure.
Yes, that was wrong struct. Sorry, I should have caught it earlier. We'll
resend it.
-Anirban
--
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