From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Digimer Subject: Re: Trying to adapt Olaf's vif MTU patch for EL5.6's 2.6.18-238.9 kernel - patch in-line. Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:31:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4DAC674B.4090803@alteeve.com> References: <4DAA4602.8080701@alteeve.com> <4DAB0A35.2020207@alteeve.com> <4DAB1A7E.1030409@alteeve.com> <20110418162223.GC20557@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110418162223.GC20557@dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Teck Choon Giam List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/18/2011 12:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0400, Digimer wrote: >> I've created two rhbz tickets for these two patches. >> >> Patch for vif MTU: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697021 >> >> Patch for vif-bridge: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697310 > > You might want to mention where those patches exist upstream. As in, > did you back-port them from 2.6.32, 2.6.38 (or 2.6.39) and if so > what git tree. Looking at Olaf's original email, it looks like the patch was created against 2.6.18. There are some git hashes in the thread*, but I couldn't say which is best to reference. I'll link to the original thread again and ask those wiser than I to sort out which hash(es) is(are) most important. http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-02/msg00351.html -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org