RE: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for ethtool application.

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:33 -0700, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@solarflare.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:27 PM
To: Wyborny, Carolyn
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for
ethtool application.

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:50 -0700, Carolyn Wyborny wrote:

quoted

This patch completes the user space implementation of the private
flags inteface in ethtool. Using -b/-B options.

[...]

Private flags are supposed to be named (string set ETH_SS_PRIV_FLAGS).
ethtool should only support getting and setting flags by name, not
number.  That way people can actually remember what the flags do and
their scripts won't break when the driver changes flag numbers.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

Ok, makes sense.  Do you want a private flags implementation or do you
agree with Michal on extending ETHTOOL_[GS]FEATURES?

I'm happy to add support for private flags identified by name.

(And I still haven't worked out with Michal how we're going to handle
the new features interface in ethtool. :-/)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.