On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:04:56PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:36:38 -0800 > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > but why the separate header? Is it going to be used in other parts of > > > > uAPI than just in ethtool? > > > > > > We might use it in pse core if capabilities between PoE and PoDL differ but > > > I am not sure about it. > > > Do you prefer to move it to ethtool header and add prefix ETHTOOL_ to the > > > enum values? > > > > I don't know enough to have an opinion :) Whatever you end up doing, > > it's probably worth documenting the reason for the choice in the commit > > message? > > Mmh, I am still not sure of the best choice on this. I think I will move it to > ethtool as you suggested. kAPI is hard to change. So it is worth thinking about it. Can you think of any possible kAPI not using ethtool netlink? Its not going to be ioctl. We generally don't export new things in /sysfs if we have netlink, etc. So to me, it is only going to be used be the ethtool API, so i would follow the usual conventions for ethtool. Andrew
