From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laszlo Ersek Subject: Re: [PATCH] xennet_get_drvinfo() Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:47:32 +0100 Message-ID: <4CED79E4.4030608@redhat.com> References: <4CDC3003.5040306@redhat.com> <1289501456.20667.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4CED7792.1090600@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4CED7792.1090600@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/24/10 21:37, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 11/11/2010 10:50 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:03 +0000, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> The following patch, written for xen/next-2.6.32, adds get_drvinfo() ("ethtool -i") support to netfront. If there is no default get_drvinfo() in effect [0], then the patch is intended to remedy the following situation: >>> >>> # ethtool -i eth0 >>> Cannot get driver information: Operation not supported >>> >>> like this: >>> >>> # ethtool -i eth0 >>> driver: xen-netfront >>> version: >>> firmware-version: >>> bus-info: vif-0 >>> >>> If a default get_drvinfo() is in effect (see [0] again), then the fallback works like this: >>> >>> # ethtool -i eth0 >>> driver: vif >>> version: >>> firmware-version: >>> bus-info: vif-0 >>> >>> and it's more fortunate to return the module name ("driver: xen-netfront") than "driver: vif". >> This is pretty much the same as a patch which I clearly forgot to send a >> pull request for ages ago[0] so: > > I remember a review comment which suggested it was unnecessary? Ah, here: > > This should already be covered by: > > commit 01414802054c382072b6cb9a1bdc6e243c74b2d5 > Author: Ben Hutchings > Date: Tue Aug 17 02:31:15 2010 -0700 > > ethtool: Provide a default implementation of ethtool_ops::get_drvinfo > > Ben. > > Maybe I should just cherry-pick that back? I don't think so, that patch is super-useful. I knew about that, though. I wrote >>> The following patch, written for xen/next-2.6.32, adds >>> get_drvinfo() ("ethtool -i") support to netfront. If there is no >>> default get_drvinfo() in effect [0], then the patch is intended to >>> remedy the following situation: and >>> If a default get_drvinfo() is in effect (see [0] again), then the >>> fallback works like this: and >>> [0] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=01414802054c382072b6cb9a1bdc6e243c74b2d5#patch17 The fallback does cover the functionality ("driver: vif"), but "driver: xen-netfront" seems to be nicer, because that matches the module (driver) name. Thanks for considering! lacos