From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitsuru Chinen Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/13] [RFC] [IPV6] Move source address selection into route lookup. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:14:00 +0900 Message-ID: <4534ACE8.3070806@jp.ibm.com> References: <4534201D.7070002@tcs.hut.fi> <20061016.222223.26532234.davem@davemloft.net> <45348DD4.4000600@6wind.com> <20061017.175231.45194288.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com, davem@davemloft.net, vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi, tgraf@suug.ch, kim.nordlund@nokia.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:28651 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932179AbWJQKOQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:14:16 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9HAEFGN000994 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:14:15 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id k9HAEFOT127828 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:14:15 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9HAEE81002738 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:14:15 -0400 To: =?UTF-8?B?WU9TSElGVUpJIEhpZGVha2kgLyDlkInol6Toi7HmmI4=?= In-Reply-To: <20061017.175231.45194288.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =E5=90=89=E8=97=A4=E8=8B=B1=E6=98=8E wrote: > In article <45348DD4.4000600@6wind.com> (at Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:01:24= +0200), Jean-Mickael Guerin says: >=20 >>> Although this conversion is very clean and the next patch >>> is very logic, I'm going to hold on all patches from 7 onward >>> so there is some time for some discussion of the RFC'ness >>> of them :-) >>> >> With regard to RFC'ness, passing self tests TAHI "Ready Logo 2" with= =20 >> SUBTREE >> turned on could be a valuable feedback. >=20 > Have you done it? >=20 > We've been trying to pass that, but we failed to compile; > we probably used wrong tree... Excuse me. I overlooked an error message from patch command. When I appiled the patch manually, we could compile them. We will double-check these patches with TAHI, either. And then, we will report the results. Best Regards, --=20 Mitsuru Chinen