From: "Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:41:19 -0700

quoted text
> I've been looking into your request number 2 above (as a reminder,
> it had to do with a patch I submitted that added a module parameter
> to e1000e in order to enable/disable Energy Efficient Ethernet for a
> particular type of adapter).
> 
> For this new ethtool feature bit/flag for EEE, would you prefer it be set via:
> 1) the generic parameter setting option (e.g. -s ethX [eee on|off]),
> 2) yet another new show/change option pair, or
> 3) a new option that can set this new feature and be expandable to future features that are likewise not related to existing ethtool options (e.g. -F [eee on|off] [whizbang on|off])?
> 
> For #2 or #3, it makes sense to use ethtool_op_[g|s]et_flags with
> new ETH_FLAG_<feature> and NETIF_F_<feature> defines, but #1 can be
> implemented that way or by using remaining reserved elements of
> struct ethtool_cmd - if your preference is for #1, would you prefer
> it be implemented with the former or latter?

I only have strong feelings about the kernel side, and an ETH_FLAG_* seems
best for this since other devices will have this feature too.

I don't think overloading parts of ethtool_cmd is wise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html