On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote: >> 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
Sound good to me. We will follow this suggestion to extend -a using the tunable op. In addition, we will come up with new API to use timeouts and on/off instead of auto/default. Eran
