From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: check for assigned mac before adopting the slaves mac address Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:45:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20101201.104546.39187178.davem@davemloft.net> References: <8879.1290741991@death> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: fubar@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: dpstrand@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:50387 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753052Ab0LASpT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:45:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =46rom: David Strand Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:25:19 -0800 > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrot= e: >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ok, fair enough. =A0If we want to get back to the ori= ginal >> behavior, however, your patch should only test for zero MAC address >> instead of testing for zero MAC address in addition to first slave. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-J >> >> --- >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.= ibm.com >> >=20 > Understood, that makes sense. The updated patch is below. You need to provide a fresh posting of your patch, with a full commit messag and proper Subject: line, as well as a proper "Signed-off-by: " tag. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches