Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*netdev

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*netdev_ops\?\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: r <krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:06:04 -0700; Any progress towards getting the netdev_ops into 2.4? I have several patches that would benefit (in that no new ioctls would be needed) if this goes in. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00492.html (8,094 bytes)
2. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: k <rudmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:07:45 -0700; If anything, it's going to go into 2.6.x first, and then backported to 2.4.x after it's had a few months of testing and tweaking.; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00493.html (8,106 bytes)
3. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: I Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:30:10 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:06:04 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Any progress towards getting the netdev_ops into 2.4? I have several patches that would benefit (; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00494.html (9,719 bytes)
4. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:02:15 -0700; Not really. Nobody is really helped with this, not even you. It makes almost no sense to make a driver only work with a 2.4.x kernel that has this netdev-ops-lite thing patched into it, because then; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00495.html (8,461 bytes)
5. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:24:00 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:30:10 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Any interest in a lower-risk netdev-ops lite? Not really. Nobody is really helped with this, not; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00496.html (12,159 bytes)
6. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:27:19 -0700; Your patch adds ethtool stuff, which works perfectly fine on all platforms, even sparc64 when executing 32-bit binaries. Just add it to your drivers if you want them supported in 2.4.x You're not add; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00497.html (9,393 bytes)
7. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: er@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:36:25 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: You gain nothing from this patch, just put it into your drivers. I am not writing drivers, I'm trying to write code that works with everything that looks remotely like an ether; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00498.html (10,557 bytes)
8. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:01:30 -0700; Making ethtool interfaces available on every net device is not right, what about the ISDN folks? What if they specifically want ethtool ioctls to fail for their devices? How can one accomplish that a; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00500.html (10,220 bytes)
9. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:28:27 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:36:25 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am not writing drivers, I'm trying to write code that works with everything that looks remotely; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00501.html (12,390 bytes)
10. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:34:39 -0700; This is not for you to decide. That is the driver author's choice. Also, succeeding for _ANY_ ethtool command is going to give a tool the impression that other basic ethtool commands should work too.; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00502.html (10,740 bytes)
11. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:08:48 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:28:27 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: In my case, if the net_device can return net_device_stats, then I want it to work. This is not fo; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00503.html (13,634 bytes)
12. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:15:51 -0700; Precisely yes, this is why they have the option of not providing the ->get_stats() method by leaving it set to NULL. Nice cop out. Netlink is the standard method to obtain information about network d; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00504.html (10,467 bytes)
13. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:59:14 -0400; Agreed. FWIW Matthew and I (and several others) are at OLS and basically out of commission for a week, so pretty-please don't make any major decisions this week ;-) Jeff; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00522.html (8,796 bytes)
14. netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:06:04 -0700; Any progress towards getting the netdev_ops into 2.4? I have several patches that would benefit (in that no new ioctls would be needed) if this goes in. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01181.html (7,993 bytes)
15. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:07:45 -0700; If anything, it's going to go into 2.6.x first, and then backported to 2.4.x after it's had a few months of testing and tweaking.; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01182.html (8,150 bytes)
16. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:30:10 -0700; Any progress towards getting the netdev_ops into 2.4? I have several patches that would benefit (in that no new ioctls would be needed) if this goes in. If anything, it's going to go into 2.6.x firs; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01183.html (9,727 bytes)
17. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:02:15 -0700; Not really. Nobody is really helped with this, not even you. It makes almost no sense to make a driver only work with a 2.4.x kernel that has this netdev-ops-lite thing patched into it, because then; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01184.html (8,564 bytes)
18. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:24:00 -0700; Any interest in a lower-risk netdev-ops lite? Not really. Nobody is really helped with this, not even you. It makes almost no sense to make a driver only work with a 2.4.x kernel that has this netde; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01185.html (12,069 bytes)
19. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:27:19 -0700; Your patch adds ethtool stuff, which works perfectly fine on all platforms, even sparc64 when executing 32-bit binaries. Just add it to your drivers if you want them supported in 2.4.x You're not add; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01186.html (9,559 bytes)
20. Re: netdev_ops? (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:36:25 -0700; You gain nothing from this patch, just put it into your drivers. I am not writing drivers, I'm trying to write code that works with everything that looks remotely like an ethernet device. Thus, I ca; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01187.html (10,611 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]