From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: Offloading bonds to hardware Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:10:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20151113.141006.1048458234203733687.davem@davemloft.net> References: <77EF4405DD4BB54AACCE7DB593DF6A9A9FD653@SJEXCHMB14.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <56462E38.5090600@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pjonnala@broadcom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sfeldma@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, idosch@mellanox.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com To: f.fainelli@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:39092 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753138AbbKMTKK (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:10:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56462E38.5090600@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Florian Fainelli Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:38:48 -0800 > This is a good explanation of why you want the changes, and how this is > implemented in a system utilizing that, but this is not documenting why > you are making these changes to the bonding code, nor how they are > supposed to be used by an implementor driver, since there is no such > user posted (yet?). I am basically not even going to look at proposals for new device ops that don't also show an actual user of the new interfaces. That's not how we do development, and not providing a real example user of a new set of interfaces makes it impossible to properly review such changes.