Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:09:04 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ethtool semantics |
| |
Roger Luethi wrote: > 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).
It does sometimes matter, because even these days we sometimes see a case where a brand name switch (like Cisco) and a brand name card (Intel, 3COM) negotiate but just don't "work right" later. In those cases forcing on both ends or just the NIC end results in a fully functional connection.
We usually do this with module parameters, but do use ethtool (or mii-tool) on occasion.
> > 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>
Yah.
Seeing this happen while autonegotiation is in progress is a small and unlikely window of course!
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
| |