Hi Ferruh, What's the plan with this patch?
Best regards, Igor On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:55 PM Igor Ryzhov <iryz...@nfware.com> wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > I answered in another thread. > > Regarding this patch – I have no objections now. > > Best regards, > Igor > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:17 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > wrote: > >> On 12/18/2018 9:20 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> > On 12/18/2018 8:20 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: >> >> Hi Ferruh, >> >> >> >> Please, look at my patch http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/48454/ and >> consider >> >> rebasing your patch over mine. >> > >> > Sorry about that, yes I will check it today. >> >> Hi Igor, >> >> I put some comments on your patch. >> >> As far as I can see it also has a target to remove current type of ethtool >> support, so this RFC should not be a concern to you. >> All ethtool support can be removed, when you have an actual solution for >> driver >> independent ethtool support only a little code needs to be added back. >> >> Thanks, >> ferruh >> >> > >> >> >> >> As we discussed with Stephen, KNI needs to supply ethtool_ops with >> >> .get_link function, to properly support link status. >> >> So we should save ethtool_ops and implement .get_link using standard >> >> ethtool_op_get_link. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Igor >> > >> > >> >>