Marek Majtyka <alardam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well > as encouraging. > > One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags > describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have > nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet. > Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable > and it can be done later on if someone needs it. > > Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with > XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a > syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove > it completely, from > which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe > we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED, > PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP). > What do you think? > > I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving > XDP flags over rtnelink interface. > > I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be > kept together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and > ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me > know. Hi Marek I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that you're still working on a revision of this series)? :) -Toke
