From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow NICs to pass Frame Checksum up the stack. Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:51:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4DFE8B83.3040501@candelatech.com> References: <4DFBBD83.9040300@candelatech.com> <1308344222.2831.20.camel@bwh-desktop> <4DFBC00F.4000500@candelatech.com> <20110619.162141.790923043226083093.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, mirqus@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:41367 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755129Ab1FSXvh (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:51:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110619.162141.790923043226083093.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/19/2011 04:21 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:58:55 -0700 > >> It's idle for 11 days. Seems dead in the water if you ask me. > > Because nobody wants to put in the effort to implement it properly. > > It's not an excuse for polluting the kernel with extraneous ethtool > commands just because a fundamental issue is not being worked on. > > If this is important to you, you have all the power in the world to > make it move forward. > > Your choice. The last email in the features thread that I saw was a question to you. Is the original author's work worth trying to salvage, or should the next person to attempt this ignore all that and start fresh? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com