[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57f1dfef-a18a-462c-9f13-938b6b155980@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:46:45 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Marek BehĂșn <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] ethtool: add struct ethtool_keee and extend
struct ethtool_eee
On 04.01.2024 17:27, Marek BehĂșn wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:23:15 +0100
> Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> + * @is_member_of_keee: struct is member of a struct ethtool_keee
>
> I don't like how the name of a field in a UAPI structure refers to
> kernel internals.
>
Actually this new member of struct ethtool_eee is irrelevant to
userspace. It just has to be member of struct ethtool_eee because
that's what we pass to the kernel EEE ethtool callbacks.
OK, in theory we could also pass the new flag as a new member of
struct net_device, but this would be hacky IMO.
> Can we rename it somehow?
>
I'm open for suggestions.
> Marek
Heiner
Powered by blists - more mailing lists