On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:59:49AM -0700, Govindarajulu Varadarajan wrote: > Add support for ETHTOOL_GTUNABLE and ETHTOOL_STUNABLE options. > > Tested rx-copybreak on enic driver. Tested ETHTOOL_TUNNABLE_STRING
A typo: TUNNABLE -> TUNABLE
> options with test/debug changes in kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Govindarajulu Varadarajan <gvara...@cisco.com>
> ---
This looks good to me but I'm still not happy with the string tunables
handling. The reason I asked about it was to find out if I missed some
important piece of information. But it doesn't seem to be the case so
that the situation looks like this:
- there is no documentation telling us how they should work
- there is no kernel or userspace code yet (except this patch)
- there is no string tunable yet
- we don't even know if there is ever going to be any
- proposed code is inconsistent (it allows passing value to kernel
which it would not be able to receive back from kernel)
- it adds extra complexity to do_gtunable() and do_stunable()
(special handling and allocating a new buffer in each iteration)
- it's dead code anyway: the way the interface is designed, current
ethtool cannot get/set future tunables it does not recognize)
Therefore I suggest to drop handling of string tunables until there is
actually a string tunable and we get (preferrably documented) consensus
on how the interface should behave. (Which may very well never happen.)
Michal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
