On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 19:12 +, Edward Cree wrote:
> Thanks both, it's making more sense now.
> One thing I'm still unclear about: why does struct ethtool_usrip4_spechave
> the ip_ver field? The struct can't be extended to cover ipv6, because the
> address fields aren't big enough. So what's i
Thanks both, it's making more sense now.
One thing I'm still unclear about: why does struct ethtool_usrip4_spechave
the ip_ver field? The struct can't be extended to cover ipv6, because the
address fields aren't big enough. So what's it for?
Also, would it be appropriate to use struct in6_addr f
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 09:53 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> > I'm looking into adding IPv6 support to the ethtool flow steering API. But,
> > I don't know "the unfortunate history of and subtle differences between the
> > RX n-tuple versus RX
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> I'm looking into adding IPv6 support to the ethtool flow steering API. But,
> I don't know "the unfortunate history of and subtle differences between the
> RX n-tuple versus RX NFC commands". In particular, would I need to add IPv6
> support
