On 5/13/2020 6:49 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> So, I think consistency of implementation is more important than fixing >> this; the current behaviour has been established for many years now. > > Hi Russell, Doug > > With netlink ethtool we have the possibility of adding a new API to > control this. And we can leave the IOCTL API alone, and the current > ethtool commands. We can add a new command to ethtool which uses the new API. > > Question is, do we want to do this? Would we be introducing yet more > confusion, rather than making the situation better? > > Andrew > I think it is likely to introduce more confusion. -Doug
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethernet: val... Doug Berger
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethernet... Andrew Lunn
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethernet... Russell King - ARM Linux admin
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethe... Doug Berger
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ... Russell King - ARM Linux admin
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] n... Russell King - ARM Linux admin
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1... Andrew Lunn
- Re: [PATCH net-ne... Michal Kubecek
- Re: [PATCH net-ne... Russell King - ARM Linux admin
- Re: [PATCH net-ne... Doug Berger
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1... Doug Berger
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] n... Doug Berger
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethernet... Michal Kubecek
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: ethe... Doug Berger