From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kni: remove ethtool support
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:18:32 +0000
Message-ID: <af366c71-327e-4d53-6462-0bbd9c962387@intel.com>
References: <20181218012539.52921-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <CAF+s_FytboQpL+B7og640i-4F3bv3HjhtQvzDD+2FEz0FWcNaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <f157ae8b-19f7-8c77-d666-dc1f6ac1d841@intel.com>
 <96c15909-f1f6-5ba9-967b-526c470b9739@intel.com>
 <CAF+s_Fw4CXzoGH77-NAWuu4spoOEmzybOp3YiUJrfXYBzj7KYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+s_Fw3-yWo8kvRSTTfYHesaQXaKffDpRD+OruP1FDmKKTc-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a8e120a9-636b-856f-e4a0-36f6a7f4aa26@intel.com>
 <CAF+s_Fzhb2j+XdSysQhjiDhp0M3=1KpR5e3DjqtM2-mKJ-WSTA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>
To: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6215B2C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:18:35 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <CAF+s_Fzhb2j+XdSysQhjiDhp0M3=1KpR5e3DjqtM2-mKJ-WSTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 2/18/2019 1:07 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> Thanks. Should I be a maintainer to ack the patch?

No, everyone can (n)ack a patch, though maintainers have more weight.

> 
> Best regards,
> Igor
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:33 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2/6/2019 1:12 PM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
>     > Hi Ferruh,
>     >
>     > What's the plan with this patch?
> 
>     Hi Igor,
> 
>     I just sent a deprecation notice for this:
>     https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/50347/
> 
>     If the deprecation notice approved, requires 3 acks, note will go into 19.05
>     And later this patch can go in 19.08
> 
>     Thanks,
>     ferruh
> 
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     > Igor
>     >
>     > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:55 PM Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com
>     <mailto:iryzhov@nfware.com>
>     > <mailto:iryzhov@nfware.com <mailto:iryzhov@nfware.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi Ferruh,
>     >
>     >     I answered in another thread.
>     >
>     >     Regarding this patch – I have no objections now.
>     >
>     >     Best regards,
>     >     Igor
>     >
>     >     On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:17 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
>     <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>     >     <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >         On 12/18/2018 9:20 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>     >         > On 12/18/2018 8:20 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
>     >         >> Hi Ferruh,
>     >         >>
>     >         >> Please, look at my patch http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/48454/ and
>     >         consider
>     >         >> rebasing your patch over mine.
>     >         >
>     >         > Sorry about that, yes I will check it today.
>     >
>     >         Hi Igor,
>     >
>     >         I put some comments on your patch.
>     >
>     >         As far as I can see it also has a target to remove current type of
>     ethtool
>     >         support, so this RFC should not be a concern to you.
>     >         All ethtool support can be removed, when you have an actual
>     solution for
>     >         driver
>     >         independent ethtool support only a little code needs to be added back.
>     >
>     >         Thanks,
>     >         ferruh
>     >
>     >         >
>     >         >>
>     >         >> As we discussed with Stephen, KNI needs to supply ethtool_ops with
>     >         >> .get_link function, to properly support link status.
>     >         >> So we should save ethtool_ops and implement .get_link using
>     standard
>     >         >> ethtool_op_get_link.
>     >         >>
>     >         >> Best regards,
>     >         >> Igor
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >
>