On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:58:58 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > struct ethtool_kringparam {
> > > __u32 cmd;
> > > __u32 mode;
> > > __u32 rx_max_pending;
> > > __u32 rx_mini_max_pending;
> > > __u32 rx_jumbo_max_pending;
> > > __u32 tx_max_pending;
> > > __u32 rx_pending;
> > > __u32 rx_mini_pending;
> > > __u32 rx_jumbo_pending;
> > > __u32 tx_pending;
> > > };
Ah, yes, if we do full field-by-field translation the result is not as
bad as embedding the "base" structure, at the cost of additional
boilerplate code in the core. But frankly potato, potatoe.
> > > and use this structure between the ethtool core and the drivers. This
> > > has already been done at least once to allow extending the
> > > API. Semantic patches are good for making the needed changes to all
> > > the drivers.
> >
> > What about the proposed "two new parameters ringparam_ext and extack for
> > .get_ringparam and .set_ringparam to extend more ring params through
> > netlink." by Hao Chen/Guangbin Huang in:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211014113943.16231-5-huangguangbin2@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > I personally like the conversion of the in in-kernel API to struct
> > ethtool_kringparam better than adding ringparam_ext.
>
> Ah, i missed that development.
I think it's the fifth version and people are starting to have feedback.
Something is not working :(
> I don't like it.
>
> You should probably jump into that discussion and explain your
> requirements. Make sure it is heading in a direction you can extend
> for your needs.
