From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes, bonding update Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: <26013.1370015790@death.nxdomain> References: <1369961744-21460-1-git-send-email-fubar@us.ibm.com> <20130531.013155.25881045915195152.davem@davemloft.net> <20130531152812.GB2910@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com> Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, vyasevic@redhat.com To: Shawn Bohrer Return-path: Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:38676 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753869Ab3EaP5G (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:06 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:57:04 -0600 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F9B19D804E for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:56:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4VFuWBP152522 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:56:33 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4VFuVPp023672 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:56:32 -0600 In-reply-to: <20130531152812.GB2910@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Shawn Bohrer wrote: >On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:31:55AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jay Vosburgh >> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:55:38 -0700 >> >> > This patch set includes 6 patches: four fixes to the dev_mc_sync / >> > dev_mc_unsync system; and two patches to bonding, one to utilize the sync >> > / unsync functions, and another minor fix related to MAC address handling. >> >> These look like fixes that should go into net, why target net-next? > >In my oppinion 0-4 should go into net since they fix the bug I >reported in: > >http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/270477 > >I've tested patches 0-4 of this series so feel free to add my tested >by to those: > >Tested-by: Shawn Bohrer > >>From just a casual observation of patch 5-6 they do not appear to be >bug fixes which is why this was probably marked net-next. They're against net-next because I was working to convert bonding to dev_sync/unsync against net-next and neglected to rebase then before I posted. The bonding patches (5 and 6) do fix a couple of bugs related to MAC address handling on s390 (the lack of additional unicast address propagation to the slaves makes qeth unhappy in some cases), so arguably they could go either way, but I'm ok with those in net-next if it's an issue. I do agree that 1-4 should go into net, once Vlad gives them a look. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com