Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 1/1] e1000e: Expose MDI-X status via ethtool change

[Chaitanya Lala <clala@riverbed.com>]

Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Chaitanya Lala <clala@riverbed.com> wrote:
>   
>> Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chaitanya Lala <clala@riverbed.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 16:15 -0700, Chaitanya Lala wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
>>>>>> index 380b042..b553bdb 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
>>>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct ethtool_cmd {
>>>>>>       __u32   maxtxpkt;       /* Tx pkts before generating tx int */
>>>>>>       __u32   maxrxpkt;       /* Rx pkts before generating rx int */
>>>>>>       __u16   speed_hi;
>>>>>> -       __u16   reserved2;
>>>>>> +       __u8    is_mdix;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Since this is specific to Ethernet over twisted-pair cable, could you
>>>>> please rename this to "eth_tp_mdix".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Will do for sure.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>>>> +       __u8    reserved2;
>>>>>>       __u32   lp_advertising; /* Features the link partner advertises
>>>>>> */
>>>>>>       __u32   reserved[2];
>>>>>>  };
>>>>>> @@ -632,6 +633,11 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
>>>>>>  #define AUTONEG_DISABLE                0x00
>>>>>>  #define AUTONEG_ENABLE         0x01
>>>>>>  +/* Mode MDI or MDI-X */
>>>>>> +#define MDI_INVALID 0x00
>>>>>> +#define MDI         0x01
>>>>>> +#define MDI_X       0x02
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, please add the prefix "ETH_TP_" to these.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Chaitanya, I have made the requested changes to the patch in my tree.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Thanks. I am very new to procedure of submitting kernel patches. Just want
>> to make sure if this means that I not need to send another patch to netdev ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chaitanya
>> --
>>     
>
> When there are changes requested on a patch, yes the patch needs to be
> re-submitted to netdev.  Since I will be pushing this patch along with
> other patches for Intel drivers to Dave once testing has been
> completed, there is no need for you to re-submit this patch.  I have
> already sucked in the changes that Ben has requested into the patch
> that is in my tree.
>
>   
Thanks for the clarification.

Chaitanya