[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <545f25c5-a497-4896-8763-fe17568599ef@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:46:35 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 15.01.2025 00:00, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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?
I see your point regarding calling convention consistency.
Drawback of passing extack as a separate argument is that we would
have to do the same extension also to functions in phylib.
Affected are phy_ethtool_set_eee and genphy_c45_ethtool_set_eee,
because extack is to be used in the latter.
Passing extack within struct ethtool_keee we don't have to change
the functions in the call chain. So passing extack separately
comes at a cost. Is it worth it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists