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 14:29:22 -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=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , "bhutchings@solarflare.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Miros=B3aw?= Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:45513 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756044Ab1IBV3Y convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:29:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Micha=B3 Miros=B3aw [mailto:mirqus@gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:22 PM >To: Wyborny, Carolyn >Cc: David Miller; bhutchings@solarflare.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for >ethtool application. > >W dniu 2 wrze=B6nia 2011 23:17 u=BFytkownik Micha=B3 Miros=B3aw > napisa=B3: >> 2011/9/2 Wyborny, Carolyn : >>>>-----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, =A02 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? =A0I can send an updated feature >implementation for the use case using DMA Coalescing if that will help= =2E >> I would rather see this as an extension to ETHTOOL_[GS]FEATURES. Its >> semantics allow easy expanding to handle device-private flags withou= t >> changing anything on userspace side. > >BTW, After pending Intel drivers get converted to ndo_set_features and >netdev->features get extended to 64 bits, it would also be possible to >use some of the unused bits there for device/driver-private flags >almost "for free". > >Best Regards, >Micha=B3 Miros=B3aw That seems reasonable as then there would be room for them, but is it g= oing to be OK to use those unused bits or are they going to be intended= for generic features and not device specific ones? =20 Is the intent then to not ever use the priv_flags partial implementatio= n? =20 Thanks, Carolyn Carolyn Wyborny Linux Development LAN Access Division Intel Corporation