netdev - Re: [net-next 4/6] e1000: configure and read MDI settings

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1342892224.2135.2.camel@jtkirshe-mobl>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:37:04 -0700
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com,
	sassmann@...hat.com, Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 4/6] e1000: configure and read MDI settings

On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 16:37 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 18:17 -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Why don't you set ecmd->eth_tp_mdix_ctrl here?
> > > 
> > > If you also leave it as 0, it's impossible for userland to tell
> whether
> > > the current mode was forced or automatically selected.
> > 
> > Thanks for the review, right now the get interface (and ethtool
> display) 
> > doesn't support any way to report if the setting was forced or not.
> I 
> > didn't think about changing the get because I didn't want to modify
> the 
> > userland reporting (I also figured it was a simple interface right
> now, 
> > and didn't need changing, and was focused on the _set_ which is the
> part 
> > fixing the users' reported bugs.)
> 
> Everything else you can change with ETHTOOL_SSET is also reported by
> ETHTOOL_GSET; why would this be any different?
> 
> > I think the patches as they currently stand are okay, do you agree?
> I 
> > would be glad to submit a followon to implement the new "get"
> interface if 
> > we can hash out the interface changes, but I see no reason to gate
> these 
> > patches.
> 
> You left this for 20 months, what's the hurry now? 

Since there some changes that are needed in this patch set, I will drop
this series from my tree so that I can continue pushing additional
ixgbe/ixgbevf patches.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)