From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265091AbUFGVmZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:42:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265101AbUFGVmY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:42:24 -0400 Received: from mail3.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.75]:60669 "EHLO mail3.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265091AbUFGVhh (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:37:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:28:04 +0200 From: Roger Luethi To: "David S. Miller" , Jeff Garzik Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC] ethtool semantics Message-ID: <20040607212804.GA17012@k3.hellgate.ch> Mail-Followup-To: "David S. Miller" , Jeff Garzik , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.7-rc1 on i686 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 92 F4 DC 20 57 46 7B 95 24 4E 9E E7 5A 54 DC 1B X-GPG: 1024/80E744BD wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org What is the correct response if a user passes ethtool speed or duplex arguments while autoneg is on? Some possible answers are: a) Yell at the user for doing something stupid. b) Fail silently (i.e. ignore command). c) Change advertised value accordingly and initiate new negotiation. d) Consider "autoneg off" implied, force media accordingly. The ethtool(8) man page I'm looking at doesn't address that question. The actual behavior I've seen is b) which is by far my least preferred solution. Roger