From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via
 ethtool
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20171116154212.GE7627@lunn.ch>
References: <1510772411-17054-1-git-send-email-eranbe@mellanox.com>
 <20171116084406.cqs4msohou5z2c5k@unicorn.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
        Gal Pressman <galp@mellanox.com>,
        Ariel Almog <ariela@mellanox.com>,
        Inbar Karmy <inbark@mellanox.com>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:57434 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933811AbdKPPmP (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:42:15 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171116084406.cqs4msohou5z2c5k@unicorn.suse.cz>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

> 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