Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

2017-12-12 Thread Michal Kubecek
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:45:47PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Jiri Pirko > Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100 > > > The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there > > *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or > > ifname.

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

2017-12-11 Thread David Miller
From: Jiri Pirko Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100 > The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there > *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or > ifname. Even rtnetlink has ifname as attribute. > > The flags and info_mask is

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

2017-12-11 Thread Jiri Pirko
Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:56:51PM CET, da...@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:02:21 +0100 > >> Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:53:31PM CET, mkube...@suse.cz wrote: >>>No function implemented yet, only genetlink and module infrastructure.

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

2017-12-11 Thread David Miller
From: Jiri Pirko Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:02:21 +0100 > Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:53:31PM CET, mkube...@suse.cz wrote: >>No function implemented yet, only genetlink and module infrastructure. >>Register/unregister genetlink family "ethtool" and allow the module to be

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

2017-12-11 Thread Jiri Pirko
Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:53:31PM CET, mkube...@suse.cz wrote: >No function implemented yet, only genetlink and module infrastructure. >Register/unregister genetlink family "ethtool" and allow the module to be >autoloaded by genetlink code (if built as a module, distributions would >probably prefer