> 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. ack, let's keep netdev in this case. > > > > 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. ack Regards, Lorenzo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
