| To: | Mirko Lindner <demon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH]sk98lin ethtool support |
| From: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:00:41 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, <krishnakumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <mlindner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <felix@xxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0103424AA4@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> |
| Reply-to: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Mirko Lindner wrote: > > Make sure you don't duplicate any ethtool functions. We don't need a > > NIC-specific diag tool either ;-) ethtool is the preferred method > > moving forward, as it's already shipping in most Linux distros. > > Yes, we need it ;) No kidding! This is not a tool for SW checks like > media, link or driver version checks, but a tool for HW checks like > register, PROM, MAC, PHY and some other chip and card checks. The > ethtool is a great tool, but the intention of this tool is not the same. If the tool reports the results of running the h/w checks, then you can use ETHTOOL_TEST. The summary results of all the tests is reported as PASS/FAIL. Not sure if your tool needs to do more... -scott |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: netfilter hook in packet capture, Harald Welte |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]sk98lin ethtool support, Mirko Lindner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |