From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Ethtool style in kernel network driver configuration. Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090613.000729.118500646.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090612.170128.213931980.davem@davemloft.net> <4A334E7A.5020805@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, nico@cam.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: mfuzzey@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35397 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762765AbZFMHH1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:07:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A334E7A.5020805@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Martin Fuzzey Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:00:10 +0200 > But please reply to the rest of that message, in particular explain why, > having publicly stated you would accept an implementation of Nicolas' > idea, you are now back pedaling. I misunderstood the problem, thanks for asking me to clarify this. I thought the issue was the "in the environment where his devices would be used" he wanted to force a certain link speed and duplex setting. In that case, forcing the link via ethtool is appropriate because it's an attribute of where the device is connected. But the situation is different, the physical hardware has a limitation and know of this belongs, or should be described, in the driver somehow.