Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:08:09 +0200 | From | Roger Luethi <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics |
| |
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:57:23 -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:28:04 +0200 > Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch> wrote: > > > What is the correct response if a user passes ethtool speed or duplex > > arguments while autoneg is on? Some possible answers are: > > [...] > speed and duplex fields should be silently ignored in this case
It may not matter much because few people care about forced media these days. And it is debatable whether trying to guess the users intention is a good idea (we lack means for users to manipulate autoneg results via advertisted values but that's no big deal).
However, "silently ignoring" strikes me as a very poor choice, in stark contrast to Unix/Linux tradition. A user issues a command which cannot be executed and gets the same response that is used to indicate success!? What school of user interface design is that? How is that not confusing users? </rant>
Roger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |