From: Edward Cree <>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:01:47 +0000

> On 01/03/18 18:36, David Miller wrote:
>> We really should have the ethtool interfaces under deep freeze until we
>> convert it to netlink or similar.
>> Second, this is a real hackish way to extend ethtool with new
>> semantics.  A structure changes layout based upon a flag bit setting
>> in an earlier member?  Yikes...
> Yeah, while I'm reasonably confident it's ABI-compatible (presence of that
>  flag in the past should always have led to drivers complaining they didn't
>  recognise it), and it is somewhat similar to the existing FLOW_EXT flag,
>  it is indeed rather ugly.  This is the only way I could see to do it
>  without adding a whole new command number, which I felt might also be
>  contentious (see: deep freeze) but is probably a better approach.
>> Lastly, there has been feedback asking how practical and useful this
>> facility actually is, and you must address that.
> According to our marketing folks, there is end-user demand for this feature
>  or something like it.  I didn't see any arguments why this isn't useful,
>  just that other things might be useful too.  (Also, sorry it took me so
>  long to address their feedback, but I had to do a bit of background
>  reading before I could understand what Jakub was suggesting.)


Since nobody is really working on the ethtool --> devlink/netlink conversion,
it really isn't reasonable for me to block useful changes like your's.

So please resubmit this series and I will apply it.


Reply via email to