From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Preferred method for configuration Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:01:11 -0700 Message-ID: <20130808090111.241a2043@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <52032D5E.6070307@hhi.fraunhofer.de> <1375940480.2424.135.camel@joe-AO722> <520332F4.5020206@hhi.fraunhofer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joe Perches , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Thomas Martitz Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:50057 "EHLO mail-pb0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757733Ab3HHQBQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:01:16 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so3404881pbb.20 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <520332F4.5020206@hhi.fraunhofer.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 07:56:04 +0200 Thomas Martitz wrote: > Resent with list in CC. > > Am 08.08.2013 07:41, schrieb Joe Perches: > > On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 07:32 +0200, Thomas Martitz wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I'm developing a NIC driver and currently export some custom > >> configuration settings and actions (e.g. enabling a loopback mode) via > >> sysfs. > > > > Is there some reason you don't want to use ethtool? > > > > > > It doesn't allow for custom settings does it? For standards stuff I'm > sure going to use ethtool. Any feature "special to my driver" is sure to meet stiff resistance from the kernel developers. Special features make it impossible for generic configuration in distributions and by management layers.