[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1356095395.7055.34.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:09:55 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: perm_addr get
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 14:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> From what I understand dev->perm_addr is set only in case the hw has
> permanent hw address somewhere written (for example EPROM).
>
> So when I query device which does not have perm_addr set I get:
>
> testt1:~$ ethtool -P team0
> Permanent address: 00:00:00:00:00:00
>
> Is this the correct behaviour? Wouldn't it be more correct if
> ethtool_get_perm_addr() fails with -ENOENT for something like that?
I don't think we should change the implementation now, as someone might
depend on it. It's trivial to distinguish this not-a-permanent-address
case. However the ethtool command output could be improved.
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.
--
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