On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Chaitanya Lala [off-list ref] wrote:

Jeff Kirsher wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chaitanya Lala [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Ben Hutchings wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 16:15 -0700, Chaitanya Lala wrote:
[...]

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
index 380b042..b553bdb 100644
--- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
+++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h

@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct ethtool_cmd {

      __u32   maxtxpkt;       /* Tx pkts before generating tx int */
      __u32   maxrxpkt;       /* Rx pkts before generating rx int */
      __u16   speed_hi;
-       __u16   reserved2;
+       __u8    is_mdix;

Since this is specific to Ethernet over twisted-pair cable, could you
please rename this to "eth_tp_mdix".

Will do for sure.

quoted

quoted

+       __u8    reserved2;
      __u32   lp_advertising; /* Features the link partner advertises
*/
      __u32   reserved[2];
 };

@@ -632,6 +633,11 @@ struct ethtool_ops {

 #define AUTONEG_DISABLE                0x00
 #define AUTONEG_ENABLE         0x01
 +/* Mode MDI or MDI-X */
+#define MDI_INVALID 0x00
+#define MDI         0x01
+#define MDI_X       0x02

[...]

Similarly, please add the prefix "ETH_TP_" to these.

Sure.

Chaitanya, I have made the requested changes to the patch in my tree.

Thanks. I am very new to procedure of submitting kernel patches. Just want
to make sure if this means that I not need to send another patch to netdev ?

Thanks,
Chaitanya
--

When there are changes requested on a patch, yes the patch needs to be
re-submitted to netdev.  Since I will be pushing this patch along with
other patches for Intel drivers to Dave once testing has been
completed, there is no need for you to re-submit this patch.  I have
already sucked in the changes that Ben has requested into the patch
that is in my tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Jeff