Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics
From: David S. Miller (davem_at_redhat.com)
Date: 06/07/04
- Previous message: john stultz: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] mull'ify multiplication with HZ in __const_udelay() [Was: Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?]"
- In reply to: Roger Luethi: "[RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Next in thread: Marc Herbert: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Marc Herbert: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Roger Luethi: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:57:23 -0700 To: Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch>
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:28:04 +0200
Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch> wrote:
> What is the correct response if a user passes ethtool speed or duplex
> arguments while autoneg is on? Some possible answers are:
>
> a) Yell at the user for doing something stupid.
>
> b) Fail silently (i.e. ignore command).
>
> c) Change advertised value accordingly and initiate new negotiation.
>
> d) Consider "autoneg off" implied, force media accordingly.
>
> The ethtool(8) man page I'm looking at doesn't address that question. The
> actual behavior I've seen is b) which is by far my least preferred
> solution.
speed and duplex fields should be silently ignored in this case
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: john stultz: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] mull'ify multiplication with HZ in __const_udelay() [Was: Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?]"
- In reply to: Roger Luethi: "[RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Next in thread: Marc Herbert: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Marc Herbert: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Roger Luethi: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
