Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 06:01:44PM CET, da...@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >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.
