Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] enable virtio_net to return bus_info in ethtool -i consistent with emulated NICs

[Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 16:06 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 02:30 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 13:52 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> >> From: Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com>
> >>
> >> Add a new .bus_name to virtio_config_ops then modify virtio_net to
> >> call through to it in an ethtool .get_drvinfo routine to report
> >> bus_info in ethtool -i output which is consistent with other
> >> emulated NICs and the output of lspci.
> > [...]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/lguest/lguest_device.c b/drivers/lguest/lguest_device.c
> >> index 0dc30ff..3724d45 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/lguest/lguest_device.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/lguest/lguest_device.c
> >> @@ -381,6 +381,11 @@ error:
> >>   	return PTR_ERR(vqs[i]);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static const char *lg_bus_name(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	return "Not Implemented";
> >> +}
> > [...]
> >> +static const char *kvm_bus_name(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	return "Not Implemented";
> >> +}
> > [...]
> >
> > Please use the existing 'not implemented' value, which is the empty
> > string.   If you think ethtool should print some helpful message instead
> > of an empty string, please submit a patch for ethtool.
> 
> 
> One question - will those actually be called via an ethtool path?  In my 
> poking about through the virtio code, I got the impression those modules 
> were for "other than networking" sorts of things.

I don't know; I just assumed that was why you were adding them!  In
other contexts such as dev_printk() this string would make even less
sense.

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.