From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:45:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20171211.134547.711629508042364482.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20171211160221.GA1885@nanopsycho>
        <20171211.115651.1046181633998981619.davem@davemloft.net>
        <20171211180219.GB2047@nanopsycho>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mkubecek@suse.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: jiri@resnulli.us
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20171211180219.GB2047@nanopsycho>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100

> The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there
> *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or
> ifname. Even rtnetlink has ifname as attribute.
> 
> The flags and info_mask is just big mystery. If it is per-command,
> seems natural to have it as attributes.

I think flags and info_mask indeed can be moved out of this struct.

I guess, in this case, I can see your point of view especially if we
allow ethtool operations on non-netdev entities.

So, ok, let's move forward without a base command struct and just
use attributes.

Thanks :)