From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 22 12:09:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84228106564A; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:09:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (alchemy.franken.de [194.94.249.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D484B8FC19; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/ALCHEMY.FRANKEN.DE) with ESMTP id p3MC99j8002405; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:09:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: (from marius@localhost) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p3MC99xW002404; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:09:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from marius) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:09:09 +0200 From: Marius Strobl To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Message-ID: <20110422120909.GO38455@alchemy.franken.de> References: <20110421203304.GA91381@alchemy.franken.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: arch@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC further mii(4) changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:09:11 -0000 On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:07:11AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Apr 21, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: > > Hi, Hi > > I fear the change is too big for me to review currently. Given that the majority of changes break backwards compatibility in some way I intend to comitting them in one pass rather than splitting them up, which unfortunately results in a rather large patch ... > > One thing I am still pondering is whether we would be able to reserve enough spares (wherever needed) to be able to eventually allow to query-through and gather a lot more information than we currently expose via ifconfig. It would be really great to be able to ask for all the bits. Not sure how linux for example handles that for mii-tool/ethtool or how those things work, but .. well you get it. > Providing functionality akin mii-tool/ethtool is also something I'd like to see. Unfortunately, I currently lack the time to work on that, maybe next year as a GSoC or some such, in case someone is willing to mentor this time :) However, I think when going a route similar to pci(4)/pciconf(8) (without repeating their mistakes) it should be possible to implement that without breaking the ABI. Marius