From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: Should "N/A" dust bunnies be swept from fw_version? Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:19:34 +0000 Message-ID: <1321575574.2749.55.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <4EC5984D.5070501@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:29105 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617Ab1KRATi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:19:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EC5984D.5070501@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:27 -0800, Rick Jones wrote: > In the discussion on "enable virtio_net to return bus_info in ethtool -i > consistent with emulated NICs" Ben Hutchings had the following feedback > on what might go into bus_info: > > > 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. > > When I was sweeping in the .get_drvinfo routines, I noticed many drivers > would return "N/A" for fw_version - presumably they were drivers for > cards without firmware. Should those be removed to have the fw_version > be the empty string, or should those sleeping dust bunnies be allowed to > lie? I much prefer the empty string; the ethtool utility can turn that into a user-friendly placeholder if it's considered confusing. 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.