lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface
Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:56:51PM CET, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:02:21 +0100
>
>> Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:53:31PM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>>>No function implemented yet, only genetlink and module infrastructure.
>>>Register/unregister genetlink family "ethtool" and allow the module to be
>>>autoloaded by genetlink code (if built as a module, distributions would
>>>probably prefer "y").
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>+
>>>+/* identifies the device to query/set
>>>+ * - use either ifindex or ifname, not both
>>>+ * - for dumps and messages not related to a particular devices, fill neither
>>>+ * - info_mask is a bitfield, interpretation depends on the command
>>>+ */
>>>+struct ethnlmsghdr {
>>>+ __u32 ifindex; /* device ifindex */
>>>+ __u16 flags; /* request/response flags */
>>>+ __u16 info_mask; /* request/response info mask */
>>>+ char ifname[IFNAMSIZ]; /* device name */
>>
>> Why do you need this header? You can have 2 attrs:
>> ETHTOOL_ATTR_IFINDEX and
>> ETHTOOL_ATTR_IFNAME
>>
>> Why do you need per-command flags and info_mask? Could be bitfield
>> attr if needed by specific command.
>
>Jiri, we've had this discussion before :-)
>
>For elements which are common to most, if not all, requests it makes
>sense to define a base netlink message.
>
>My opinion on this matter has not changed at all since the last time
>we discussed this.

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.


>
>So unless you have new information to provide to me on this issue
>which might change my mind, please accept the result of the previous
>discussion which is that a base netlink message is not only
>appropriate but desirable.
>
>Thank you.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-11 19:02    [W:0.343 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site