[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161104122935.GL13959@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:29:35 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rosemi.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
raju.lakkaraju@...rosemi.com, cphealy@...il.com, robh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] ethtool: (uapi) Add ETHTOOL_PHY_GTUNABLE
and ETHTOOL_PHY_STUNABLE
> It was "just" to mimic how "tunable_type_id/ETHTOOL_TUNABLE_UNSPEC" (and other)
> is done.
Yes, i know. I'm wondering about cult cargo programming...
> The thinking was that we did not want an "ID" of zero do to anything - because
> that could mean the programmer had forgot to set the field...
Seems reasonable. Leave it as is.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists