> I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the
> structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to
> suggest as an alternative, I started to wonder if it is really necessary
> to add a new ethtool command at all. Couldn't this be handled as
> a tunable?
I agree with Michal here.
And as he pointed out, there does not need to be a 1:1 mapping between
ethtool(1) and the kAPI. I suggest extending the existing -a option,
and have it make two system calls if needed.
Andrew
