Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 4/6] ethtool: extend ringparam setting uAPI with rx_buf_len

["huangguangbin (A)" <huangguangbin2@huawei.com>]

On 2021/10/26 3:01, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 25.10.2021 10:45:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> The approach Andrew suggested is two-fold. First introduce a "struct
>>> ethtool_kringparam" that's only used inside the kernel, as "struct
>>> ethtool_ringparam" is ABI. Then extend "struct ethtool_kringparam" as
>>> needed.
>>
>> Indeed, there are different ways to extend the API for drivers,
>> I think it comes down to personal taste. I find the "inheritance"
>> models in C (kstruct usually contains the old struct as some "base")
>> awkward.
>>
>> I don't think we have agreed-on best practice in the area.
> 
>  From my point of view, if there already is an extension mainline:
> 
> | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=f3ccfda19319
> 
> I'm more in the flavor for modeling other extensions the same way. Would
> be more consistent to name the new struct "kernel_"ethtool_ringparam,
> following the coalescing example:
> 
> | struct kernel_ethtool_ringparam {
> |        __u32   rx_buf_len;
> | };
> 
> regards,
> Marc
> 
We think ethtool_ringparam_ext is more easy to understand it is extension of
struct ethtool_ringparam. However, we don't mind to keep the same way and modify
to the name kernel_ethtool_ringparam if everyone agrees.

Does anyone have other opinions?