Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752460AbdLKR7c (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:59:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:43567 "EHLO mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752357AbdLKR7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:59:30 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou19tzI7TB6FryamQpeIhLhKcoTO2FlLCDXdmvwVl4tudJD+CFWN/uPGh0srlkIcxQ00bcrsA== Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:59:28 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: David Miller Cc: mkubecek@suse.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ethtool netlink interface (WiP) Message-ID: <20171211175928.GA2047@nanopsycho> References: <20171211163246.GC1885@nanopsycho> <20171211.120144.1060832843526341781.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171211.120144.1060832843526341781.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1353 Lines: 27 Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 06:01:44PM CET, davem@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:32:46 +0100 > >> I think that it does not make sense to convert ethtool->netlink_ethtool >> 1:1 feature wise. Now we have devlink, ritch switch representation >> model, tc offload and many others. Lot of things that are in >> ethtool, should be done in devlink. Also, there are couple of things >> that should just die - nice example is ethtool --config-ntuple - we >> should use tc for that. > >Whilst I do agree that devlink is probably a good place for this stuff >(we want to be able to do ethetool things on objects that lack a netdev) >I do not agree with the tc angle. > >It is entirely appropriate to set the ntuple settings of a driver >without being required to use TC or similar. > >All you are going to do with your suggestion is make people keep using >the existing ethtool ioctl, because they'll say "screw this, I'm not >using TC I have something which works just fine already". And that's >not the goal of putting this stuff into netlink, we want people to >use the new facilities and move off of the ioctl. Sure, but this is a great opportunity to avoid copying old mistakes. That is why I suggested to do it not 1:1 but rather introduce brand new netlink-based interface that would not carry old baggage.