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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:12 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> Cc: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>, Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>, Inbar Karmy <inbark@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool > I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the > structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to > suggest as an alternative, I started to wonder if it is really necessary > to add a new ethtool command at all. Couldn't this be handled as > a tunable? I agree with Michal here. And as he pointed out, there does not need to be a 1:1 mapping between ethtool(1) and the kAPI. I suggest extending the existing -a option, and have it make two system calls if needed. Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists