From: Matt Wilson <m...@amzn.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:15:11 -0700
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:08:03AM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote: >> On 2016/07/14 08:22, Matt Wilson wrote: >> [...] >> > >> > Dave and Benjamin, >> > >> > Do you want to see the interrupt moderation extensions to ethtool and >> > the sysfs nodes removed before this lands in net-next? Or should >> > Netanel remove the sysfs bits until we can extend the ethtool >> > interfaces to cover the parameters that ena uses? >> >> I couldn't say what's acceptable or not. A few other drivers (qlcnic, >> sfc, ...) already have sysfs tunables. Maybe John, as the new ethtool >> maintainer, can weight in too about the changes required to ethtool. > > We definitely want ethtool to handle all the settings, it's just a > question of when. We also want to address and resolve all the great > feedback so far, and since you originally raised the point about > extending ethtool I wanted to see if you have any major objection. If you add the sysfs stuff you're stuck with it forever, so I definitely do not want to see that. You guys should start simple, a basic driver that supports what is possible with no core kernel changes or non-portable driver private sysfs knobx. Only then should you think about adding new things.
