On 08/01/2018 09:32 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:26:24 -0700 > >> On 07/17/2018 08:36 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> Allow re-purposing the wol->sopass storage area to specify a bitmask of >>> filters >>> (programmed previously via ethtool::rxnfc) to be used as wake-up patterns. >> >> John, David, can you provide some feedback if the approach is >> acceptable? I will address Andrew's comment about the user friendliness >> and allow providing a comma separate list of filter identifiers. >> >> One usability issue with this approach is that one cannot specify >> wake-on-LAN using WAKE_MAGICSECURE *and* WAKE_FILTER at the same time, >> since it uses the same location in the ioctl() structure that is being >> passed. Do you see this as a problem? > > Once again we are stuck in this weird situation, a sort of limbo. > > On the one hand, I don't want to block your work on the ethtool > netlink stuff being done. > > However it is clear that by using netlink attributes, it would > be so much cleaner. > > I honestly don't know what to say at this time. I wish I had > a clear piece of advice and a way for everyone to move forward, > and usually I do, but this time I really don't :-/ >
That's fine, let me submit the first few patches that are per-requisite but don't actually introduce the WAKE_FILTER support. Once Michal's ethtool/netlink work gets merged I can quickly extend that in a way that supports wake-on-LAN using configured filters. Does the current approach of specifying a bitmask of filters looks reasonable to you though? -- Florian
