From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:53072 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754575AbeCGPYQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:24:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:24:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20180307.102415.1350852471214942248.davem@davemloft.net> To: ecree@solarflare.com Cc: linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters with RSS From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <3d8f5254-84e2-bb13-f4ae-f4951cbce55c@solarflare.com> References: <85718e87-e999-abb7-4a84-84858ee86a8e@solarflare.com> <20180301.133658.1008622033674396104.davem@davemloft.net> <3d8f5254-84e2-bb13-f4ae-f4951cbce55c@solarflare.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Edward Cree Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:01:47 +0000 > On 01/03/18 18:36, David Miller wrote: >> We really should have the ethtool interfaces under deep freeze until we >> convert it to netlink or similar. >> Second, this is a real hackish way to extend ethtool with new >> semantics.� A structure changes layout based upon a flag bit setting >> in an earlier member?� Yikes... > Yeah, while I'm reasonably confident it's ABI-compatible (presence of that > �flag in the past should always have led to drivers complaining they didn't > �recognise it), and it is somewhat similar to the existing FLOW_EXT flag, > �it is indeed rather ugly.� This is the only way I could see to do it > �without adding a whole new command number, which I felt might also be > �contentious (see: deep freeze) but is probably a better approach. > >> Lastly, there has been feedback asking how practical and useful this >> facility actually is, and you must address that. > According to our marketing folks, there is end-user demand for this feature > �or something like it.� I didn't see any arguments why this isn't useful, > �just that other things might be useful too.� (Also, sorry it took me so > �long to address their feedback, but I had to do a bit of background > �reading before I could understand what Jakub was suggesting.) Ok. Since nobody is really working on the ethtool --> devlink/netlink conversion, it really isn't reasonable for me to block useful changes like your's. So please resubmit this series and I will apply it. Thanks.