netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: ethtool: add support for forward error correction modes

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: <DM5PR12MB1786C97235D728D6087AA933C8B40@DM5PR12MB1786.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:41:34 +0000
From:   Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
To:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: ethtool: add support for forward error
 correction modes

  And by the way, we currently have two ethtool APIs which pump in an Auto-Negotiation indication -- set_link_ksettings() and set_pauseparam().  Now we're talking about adding a third, set_fecparam().  Are all of the calls to these three APIs supposed to agree on the concept of Auto-Negotiations?  I.e. what's it mean if set_link_ksettings() gets called with link_ksettings->base.autoneg == AUTONEG_ENABLE but set_pauseparam() gets called with epause->autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE?  And now adding set_fecparam() into the system with a similar ability to specify the state of Auto-Negotiation is even more confusing.

Casey