Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] vis packet format

["Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I was wondering about how the
compatibility version would have to bedone anyway in such a case
:D. So it should probably also be a general thing to better not
change the compat-version during one merge window, right?

I'll try to make too patches now then, that's fine.

Cheers, Linus

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:03:55AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:39:46AM +0100, Linus L??ssing wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Marek and I have been chatting a little about the buggy vis raw
> > output yesterday. And there was either the option to sort the
> > mixed list on the receiving vis server or on the sender already.
> > For the second option there was also the idea of changing the vis
> > packet format accordingly to also save some more overhead.
> 
> A comment about the mainline development process. Changes which are
> clearly bug fixes we should be able to get merged into the -rc kernels
> at any time. Changes which look like development work have to wait
> until the next merge window.
> 
> This vis problem about it showing the wrong interface will be in
> -rc1. It would be nice to get it fixed. We are more likely to get such
> a fix accepted if it is small and looks like a bug fix. I expect it
> will get rejected if it is big and looks like development work.
> 
> So can we develop two fixes? Something small and simple for -rc1 and
> an optimizing fix which will go into linux-next and then into mainline
> during the next merge window?
> 
>        Andrew
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]