Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Control VF link state

From: John Fastabend <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:43:07 -0700

[...]

>> The risk I see with extensible operations (and which has occurred with
>> many ethtool operations) is that drivers may quietly ignore the elements
>> they don't implement.  So either (1) add yet another specific operation
>> or (2) define a general VF setter, require drivers to set some flags
>> that indicate which VF attributes are settable, and check the flags in
>> rtnetlink.c before calling into the driver.
>
> both (1) and (2) makes sense to me, I am more leaned to (2), John, do
> we have a go from your side to post V1 for net-next? which of the
> options makes more sense to you?
>
> Or.
>

Either is fine if you prefer (2) that works for me. I'll get it
working with ixgbe after you post it.

.John