netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 05/19] net: ethtool: add new ETHTOOL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG88wWZNB5bT7ywMbcfGbQS=f2gdbC6NpKVt5Opcs-oAbMUjLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:49:55 -0800
From:	David Decotigny <ddecotig@...il.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.co.il>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <_govind@....com>,
	Venkata Duvvuru <VenkatKumar.Duvvuru@...lex.com>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	Ed Swierk <eswierk@...portsystems.com>,
	Robert Love <robert.w.love@...el.com>,
	"James E.Yuval Mintz" <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 05/19] net: ethtool: add new
 ETHTOOL_GSETTINGS/SSETTINGS API

Sure, I will send an update:

struct ethtool_link_settings {
        __u32   cmd;
        __u32   speed;
        __u8    duplex;
        __u8    port;
        __u8    phy_address;
        __u8    autoneg;
        __u8    mdio_support;
        __u8    eth_tp_mdix;
        __u8    eth_tp_mdix_ctrl;
        __s8    link_mode_masks_nwords;
        __u32   reserved[8];
        __u32   link_mode_masks[0];
};

(+ same renaming for the ioctl sub-cmds)

that would still replace GSET/SSET/ethtool_cmd.

would that be ok?

Or, just to make sure: would you rather keep GSET/SSET/ethtool_cmd as
now for everything but the link mode masks (that would be marked as
deprecated), and have only a new command G/SLINK_MODES + struct
ethtool_link_mode_support that would only take care of the link mode
masks?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 16:29 -0800, David Decotigny wrote:
>> From: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
>>
>> This patch defines a new ETHTOOL_GSETTINGS/SSETTINGS API, handled by
>> the new get_ksettings/set_ksettings callbacks. This API provides
>> support for most legacy ethtool_cmd fields, adds support for larger
>> link mode masks (up to 4064 bits, variable length), and removes
>> ethtool_cmd deprecated fields (transceiver/maxrxpkt/maxtxpkt).
> [...]
>
> I previously asked you to include 'link' in the command names and
> structure name.  This would clarify that these are now only for link
> settings and reduce the risk of confusion between old and new commands.
> However, you didn't reply to that review.  Do you have any objection to
> doing this?
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.