From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wyborny, Carolyn" Subject: RE: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for ethtool application. Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1314996631-4773-1-git-send-email-carolyn.wyborny@intel.com> <20110902.165524.1076389492712310664.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "bhutchings@solarflare.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:5117 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755822Ab1IBVLV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:11:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110902.165524.1076389492712310664.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] >Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:55 PM >To: Wyborny, Carolyn >Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for >ethtool application. > >From: Carolyn Wyborny >Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:50:30 -0700 > >> This patch completes the user space implementation of the private >> flags inteface in ethtool. Using -b/-B options. >> >> Signed-off-by: Carolyn Wyborny > >The only use case you show here is something generic which other >chips have, Energy Efficient Ethernet. > >Making an attribute private which is present widely amonst various >networking chips makes no sense at all. > >It deserved a generic ethtool flag. Fair enough on this particular feature, but does that negate the implementation suggestion altogether? I can send an updated feature implementation for the use case using DMA Coalescing if that will help. Thanks, Carolyn Carolyn Wyborny Linux Development LAN Access Division Intel Corporation