From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [patch 12/12] Configure out ethtool support Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:59:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20080731085916.232f4c31@extreme> References: <20080730.145727.07367670.davem@davemloft.net> <20080730151316.a4d76fe9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1217500776.3454.136.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080731.034737.154058020.davem@davemloft.net> <1217518591.3657.27.camel@calx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , dwmw2@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Mackall Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([216.93.170.194]:37457 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753463AbYGaP7T (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:59:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1217518591.3657.27.camel@calx> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:36:31 -0500 Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 03:47 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > I especially appreciate that you still haven't accepted the plain fact > > that CONFIG_ETHTOOL needs to be selected by CONFIG_INET. > > So far the following features have been mentioned as being critically > dependent on ethtool: > > - bridging > - bonding > - LRO > - netfilter (really?) > - IPv6 (really?) > > And yet every single one of these is currently a config option, so your > above statement is still looking awfully dubious. At this point I'd > suggest that you've painted yourself into a corner where all these > options must also actually be mandatory, but I'm afraid you might > secretly want to do that anyway. > > > I definitely see the next consequence of the CONFIG_ETHTOOL stuff, and > > that's a set of ifdef'ola in all the drivers to config out the > > per-driver ethtool support code. > > If someone shows up with such a patch for a Xylinx or ARM SOC device, > you probably should take it. If the patch is instead for a 10Gb PCIe > device, I suggest you don't. (At least not until that sort of thing > becomes standard embedded kit.) > I have no problem with an embedded CONFIG_ETHTOOL that normal users can ignore. Just don't expect the network developers to fix things that are broken when CONFIG_ETHTOOL is not enabled. I.e if embedded build is broken it is your problem.