RE: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for ethtool application.

[Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>]

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:33 -0700, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@solarflare.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:27 PM
> >To: Wyborny, Carolyn
> >Cc: davem@davemloft.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> >Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for
> >ethtool application.
> >
> >On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:50 -0700, Carolyn Wyborny wrote:
> >> This patch completes the user space implementation of the private
> >> flags inteface in ethtool. Using -b/-B options.
> >[...]
> >
> >Private flags are supposed to be named (string set ETH_SS_PRIV_FLAGS).
> >ethtool should only support getting and setting flags by name, not
> >number.  That way people can actually remember what the flags do and
> >their scripts won't break when the driver changes flag numbers.
> >
> >Ben.
> >
> >--
> >Ben Hutchings, Staff 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.
> 
> Ok, makes sense.  Do you want a private flags implementation or do you
> agree with Michal on extending ETHTOOL_[GS]FEATURES?

I'm happy to add support for private flags identified by name.

(And I still haven't worked out with Michal how we're going to handle
the new features interface in ethtool. :-/)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff 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.