From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB96C5519F for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE260222C3 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728052AbgKTNjo (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:39:44 -0500 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:41184 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726590AbgKTNjn (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:39:43 -0500 Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kg6dW-0087B0-Fl; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:39:38 +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:39:38 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Michal Kubecek Cc: tanhuazhong , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, kuba@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] ethtool: add support for controling the type of adaptive coalescing Message-ID: <20201120133938.GG1804098@lunn.ch> References: <1605758050-21061-1-git-send-email-tanhuazhong@huawei.com> <1605758050-21061-2-git-send-email-tanhuazhong@huawei.com> <20201119041557.GR1804098@lunn.ch> <20201119220203.fv2uluoeekyoyxrv@lion.mk-sys.cz> <8e9ba4c4-3ef4-f8bc-ab2f-92d695f62f12@huawei.com> <20201120072322.slrpgqydcupm63ep@lion.mk-sys.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201120072322.slrpgqydcupm63ep@lion.mk-sys.cz> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:23:22AM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:59:59AM +0800, tanhuazhong wrote: > > On 2020/11/20 6:02, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > > > We could use a similar approach as struct ethtool_link_ksettings, e.g. > > > > > > struct kernel_ethtool_coalesce { > > > struct ethtool_coalesce base; > > > /* new members which are not part of UAPI */ > > > } > > > > > > get_coalesce() and set_coalesce() would get pointer to struct > > > kernel_ethtool_coalesce and ioctl code would be modified to only touch > > > the base (legacy?) part. > > > > While already changing the ops arguments, we could also add extack > > > pointer, either as a separate argument or as struct member (I slightly > > > prefer the former). > > > > If changing the ops arguments, each driver who implement > > set_coalesce/get_coalesce of ethtool_ops need to be updated. Is it > > acceptable adding two new ops to get/set ext_coalesce info (like > > ecc31c60240b ("ethtool: Add link extended state") does)? Maybe i can send V2 > > in this way, and then could you help to see which one is more suitable? > > If it were just this one case, adding an extra op would be perfectly > fine. But from long term point of view, we should expect extending also > other existing ethtool requests and going this way for all of them would > essentially double the number of callbacks in struct ethtool_ops. coccinella might be useful here. Andrew