[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250730134213.36f1f625@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 13:42:13 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Lifshits, Vitaly" <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "Ruinskiy, Dima"
<dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>, "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 1/1] e1000e: Introduce private flag and module
param to disable K1
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:28:48 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> My opinion is that devlink is the correct way to solve this problem.
> However, I do understand from the responses above (3) that this is somewhat
> non-trivial to implement and thus comes with some risks. And I do accept
> your argument that for old drivers, which already use module parameters,
> some pragmatism seems appropriate.
>
> IOW, I drop my objection to using a module parameter in this case.
>
> What I would suggest is that some consideration is given to adding devlink
> support to this driver. And thus modernising it in that respect. Doing so
> may provide better options for users in future.
FWIW I will still object. The ethtool priv flag is fine, personally
I don't have a strong preference on devlink vs ethtool priv flags.
But if you a module param you'd need a very strong justification..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists