Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 4/6] ethtool: extend ringparam setting uAPI with rx_buf_len
From: huangguangbin (A) <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-26 14:41:31
Also in:
linux-s390
From: huangguangbin (A) <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-26 14:41:31
Also in:
linux-s390
On 2021/10/26 3:01, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 25.10.2021 10:45:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:quoted
quoted
The approach Andrew suggested is two-fold. First introduce a "struct ethtool_kringparam" that's only used inside the kernel, as "struct ethtool_ringparam" is ABI. Then extend "struct ethtool_kringparam" as needed.Indeed, there are different ways to extend the API for drivers, I think it comes down to personal taste. I find the "inheritance" models in C (kstruct usually contains the old struct as some "base") awkward. I don't think we have agreed-on best practice in the area.From my point of view, if there already is an extension mainline: | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=f3ccfda19319 I'm more in the flavor for modeling other extensions the same way. Would be more consistent to name the new struct "kernel_"ethtool_ringparam, following the coalescing example: | struct kernel_ethtool_ringparam { | __u32 rx_buf_len; | }; regards, Marc
We think ethtool_ringparam_ext is more easy to understand it is extension of struct ethtool_ringparam. However, we don't mind to keep the same way and modify to the name kernel_ethtool_ringparam if everyone agrees. Does anyone have other opinions?