From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Luethi Subject: Re: [PATCH-2.4] via-rhine: fix duplex detection issue Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:51:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20080730095120.GA15833@core.hellgate.ch> References: <20080729220802.GA25729@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from mail20.bluewin.ch ([195.186.19.65]:53856 "EHLO mail20.bluewin.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756533AbYG3J5w (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:57:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080729220802.GA25729@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:08:02 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > The user that I am suggest using #1, but the maintainer that > I am prefers #2. So I think I'll just go with the patch for > the specific issue, and only consider the backport for my > personal trees the day I have time to spend on this. That way > we get one small patch for one small issue. > > I'd like to get your opinion on this, and to check with you > if you are basically OK with that change in principle. The major changes in 2.6 via-rhine have been in use for quite a while. It's clearly an improvement over the one in 2.4 and every bit as stable. I'm not sure a backport is worth it, though, especially considering that it's incredibly easy to break via-rhine for some odd hardware or use case. For 2.4, I'd stay with the devil that I know -- i.e. make minimal changes only. But whatever you decide is fine with me. I trust that the 2.4 maintainer knows what is best for those users. Better than me, anyway. Roger