On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:49:25PM +0200, 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. > > 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?
For the record, netlink interface for pause parameters which is based on existing ioctl and ethtool_ops is in mainline but not in v5.6. If there is a consensus that it should be rethought, it might still be possible to drop these two request types and come with a better API later (i.e. in 5.8 or 5.9 cycle). Michal
