Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge)

Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge)

[Jay Vosburgh]

>So when do these changes end up being sent to myself or
>Jeff for mainline inclusion?
>
>I have no objection to the sourceforge project for bonding, but
>I do object to there being such latency between what the sourceforge
>tree has (especially bug fixes) and what gets submitted into the
>mainline.
>
>Personally, I'd prefer that all development occur in the mainline
>tree.  That gives you testing coverage that is impossible otherwise.

      Fair enough; the delay has gotten excessive of late.

      Would it be satisfactory going forward for the sourceforge site to
contain patches to "standard" releases (e.g., 2.4.20), and do updates to
the current development kernel and the sourceforge site simultaneously? In
other words, sourceforge has a patch containing all bonding updates since
2.4.20 (or whichever version) was released, and each time that patch is
updated, the incremental update goes out for inclusion in the development
kernel.

      -J

Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge)

[Jeff Garzik]

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>       Fair enough; the delay has gotten excessive of late.
> 
>       Would it be satisfactory going forward for the sourceforge site to
> contain patches to "standard" releases (e.g., 2.4.20), and do updates to
> the current development kernel and the sourceforge site simultaneously? In
> other words, sourceforge has a patch containing all bonding updates since
> 2.4.20 (or whichever version) was released, and each time that patch is
> updated, the incremental update goes out for inclusion in the development
> kernel.


The ideal situation is for you to send two sets of patches, one for 2.4 
tree and one for 2.5 tree.  Those will get applied to 2.4.21-pre and 
2.5.<latest>.  Patches against 2.4.20 proper are ok as long as they 
apply correctly to the latest 2.4.21-pre tree (so, patches against 
2.4.21-pre are preferred)

If the patches are the same for 2.4 and 2.5, just send one set and note 
that fact.  My preference would be to address these patches

	To: davem@redhat.com
	CC: netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com

(David, feel free to correct me here, or direct patches to me)

When you receive bug fixes, forwarding ASAP would be very much appreciated.

	Jeff

Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge)

[Jay Vosburgh]

      I have incorporated Shmulik Hen's bug fix patches to bonding (patch
numbers 2 and 3) into the current code and released the new patch to
sourceforge.net/projects/bonding.  The current bonding update is
bonding-2.4.20-20030320.  The only changes I made were minor spelling /
formatting fixes.

      -J

Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge)

[David S. Miller]

   From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
   Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:53:14 -0800
   
         I have incorporated Shmulik Hen's bug fix patches to bonding (patch
   numbers 2 and 3) into the current code and released the new patch to
   sourceforge.net/projects/bonding.  The current bonding update is
   bonding-2.4.20-20030320.  The only changes I made were minor spelling /
   formatting fixes.

So when do these changes end up being sent to myself or
Jeff for mainline inclusion?

I have no objection to the sourceforge project for bonding, but
I do object to there being such latency between what the sourceforge
tree has (especially bug fixes) and what gets submitted into the
mainline.

Personally, I'd prefer that all development occur in the mainline
tree.  That gives you testing coverage that is impossible otherwise.