Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:56:55 +0100
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface
Message-ID: <20171212235655.qkfahkmeorazwlx6@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <20171211160221.GA1885@nanopsycho>
 <20171211.115651.1046181633998981619.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20171211180219.GB2047@nanopsycho>
 <20171211.134547.711629508042364482.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171211.134547.711629508042364482.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 823
Lines: 22

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:45:47PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100
> 
> > The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there
> > *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or
> > ifname. Even rtnetlink has ifname as attribute.
> > 
> > The flags and info_mask is just big mystery. If it is per-command,
> > seems natural to have it as attributes.
> 
> I think flags and info_mask indeed can be moved out of this struct.
> 
> I guess, in this case, I can see your point of view especially if we
> allow ethtool operations on non-netdev entities.
> 
> So, ok, let's move forward without a base command struct and just
> use attributes.

OK, I'll rework the interface to use attributes for all data.

Michal Kubecek