From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethtool: ETHTOOL_SFEATURES: remove NETIF_F_COMPAT return Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:13:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1306505626.2759.4.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <20110516.140958.625993829749556424.davem@davemloft.net> <20110519100331.GA25103@rere.qmqm.pl> <20110524091437.GA10779@rere.qmqm.pl> <20110524.153930.610330240390616957.davem@davemloft.net> <20110524215923.GA20138@rere.qmqm.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Miros=C5=82aw?= Return-path: Received: from mail.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:18721 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753582Ab1E0ONt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2011 10:13:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110524215923.GA20138@rere.qmqm.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 23:59 +0200, Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:39:30PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw > > Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:14:37 +0200 > >=20 > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:03:31PM +0200, Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82= aw wrote: > > >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:09:58PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > >> > You guys really need to sort this out properly. > > >> > Please resubmit whatever final solution is agreed upon. > > >> I noticed that v2.6.39 was tagged today. We should definitely re= move > > >> NETIF_F_COMPAT so it won't bite us in the future. The other patc= h that > > >> fixes ethtool_ops->set_flags compatibility is a bugfix, so it sh= ould go > > >> in - if we decide that the SFEATURES compatibility should be rem= oved > > >> it won't matter. > > >>=20 > > >> Ben, do you agree? > > > Ping? > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/95552/ > > > (this is a bugfix, so should go to stable) > > >=20 > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/95753/ > > > (removes ETHTOOL_F_COMPAT; this we need to decide on) > > You and Ben are still arguing over details. > >=20 > > I want fresh versions of these patches (yes, both of them) once > > all of the issues are resolved. >=20 > We could just wait for 2.6.40 and pretend this code part never existe= d. ;-) I think I will make ethtool check for a minimum kernel version of 2.6.4= 0 before using ETHTOOL_{G,S}FEATURES. > I'll rebase the first patch tomorrow. Without it the compatibility in > ETHTOOL_SFEATURES for non-converted drivers is busted wrt set_flags. This is an improvement, but I still think the fallback is fundamentally broken - there's no good way for userland to tell what (if anything) went wrong when the return value has ETHTOOL_F_COMPAT set. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.