[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250114150043.222e1eb5@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:00:43 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Andrew
Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/10] ethtool: allow ethtool op set_eee to
set an NL extack message
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:28:22 +0100 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> index f711bfd75..8ee047747 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ struct ethtool_keee {
> __ETHTOOL_DECLARE_LINK_MODE_MASK(supported);
> __ETHTOOL_DECLARE_LINK_MODE_MASK(advertised);
> __ETHTOOL_DECLARE_LINK_MODE_MASK(lp_advertised);
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack;
> u32 tx_lpi_timer;
> bool tx_lpi_enabled;
> bool eee_active;
:S I don't think we have a precedent for passing extack inside
the paramter struct. I see 25 .set_eee callbacks, not crazy many.
Could you plumb this thru as a separate argument, please?
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists