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]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:17:21 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
cc:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...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 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.)

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.
--
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