On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:00:15 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > FWIW I'm not 100% sure if we should scope the family to all of netdev > > or just xdp. Same for the name of the op, should we call the op dev_get > > or dev_xdp_get.. > > is it likely we are going to add non-xdp info here in the near future? If not > I would say we can target just xdp for the moment. What brought it to mind for me was offloads like the NVMe/DDP for instance. Whether that stuff should live in ethtool or a netdev family is a bit unclear. > > These defines don't belong in uAPI. Especially the use of BIT(). > > since netdev xdp_features is a bitmask, can we use 'flags' as type for definitions in > netdev.yaml so we can get rid of this BIT() definitions for both user and > kernel space? If you have no use for the bit numbers - definitely.
