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 10:27:21 -0700 Message-ID: <26571.1370021241@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> <26013.1370015790@death.nxdomain> <51A8C969.5090005@redhat.com> Cc: Shawn Bohrer , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: vyasevic@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:38729 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753061Ab3EaR1i (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:38 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:27:37 -0600 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D03819D8051 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:27:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4VHRQIu132652 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:27:26 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4VHRMEu011672 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:27:23 -0600 In-reply-to: <51A8C969.5090005@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Vlad Yasevich wrote: >On 05/31/2013 11:56 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> 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 > >I've reviewed the patches and ran a quick test. They look good and fix >obvious problems. Thanks to Jay for finding and fixing them. > >Reviewed-by: Vlad Yasevich Please hold off applying these. I just spotted an error in patch #5, so I'm going to fix that and respin the set against -net. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com