From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] ethtool: add speed/duplex validation functions Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:49:04 -0800 Message-ID: <56B291F0.9010909@hpe.com> References: <1454468677-12280-1-git-send-email-razor@blackwall.org> <1454468677-12280-2-git-send-email-razor@blackwall.org> <20160204103226.333d98ca@samsung9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, davem@davemloft.net, Nikolay Aleksandrov To: Stephen Hemminger , Nikolay Aleksandrov Return-path: Received: from g9t1613g.houston.hp.com ([15.240.0.71]:54749 "EHLO g9t1613g.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933518AbcBCXtJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:49:09 -0500 Received: from g1t5424.austin.hp.com (g1t5424.austin.hp.com [15.216.225.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g9t1613g.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F35363AD2 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:49:08 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <20160204103226.333d98ca@samsung9> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/03/2016 03:32 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > But why check for valid value at all. At some point in the > future, there will be yet another speed adopted by some standard body > and the switch statement would need another value. > > Why not accept any value? This is a virtual device. > And even for not-quite-virtual devices - such as a VC/FlexNIC in an HPE blade server there can be just about any speed set. I think we went down a path of patching some things to address that many years ago. It would be a shame to undo that. rick