Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics
From: Roger Luethi (rl_at_hellgate.ch)
Date: 06/08/04
- Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH 2.6.7-rc3] nr_free_files ?"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:08:09 +0200 To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:57:23 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 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:
> >
[...]
> speed and duplex fields should be silently ignored in this case
It may not matter much because few people care about forced media these
days. And it is debatable whether trying to guess the users intention
is a good idea (we lack means for users to manipulate autoneg results
via advertisted values but that's no big deal).
However, "silently ignoring" strikes me as a very poor choice, in
stark contrast to Unix/Linux tradition. A user issues a command which
cannot be executed and gets the same response that is used to indicate
success!? What school of user interface design is that? How is that
not confusing users? </rant>
Roger
-
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: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH 2.6.7-rc3] nr_free_files ?"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Reply: Bill Davidsen: "Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
