On 07/03/18 15:24, David Miller wrote: > Ok. > > Since nobody is really working on the ethtool --> devlink/netlink conversion, > it really isn't reasonable for me to block useful changes like your's. > > So please resubmit this series and I will apply it. > > Thanks. Ok, thanks. Should I stick with the hackish union-and-flag-bit, or define a new ethtool command number for the extended command?
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] sfc: support RSS spreading... kbuild test robot
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters with RSS Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters with... Alexander Duyck
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters ... Edward Cree
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filt... Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple ... Alexander Duyck
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters with RSS David Miller
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters with... Edward Cree
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters ... David Riddoch
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filters ... David Miller
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple filt... Edward Cree
- Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/2] ntuple ... David Miller
