[PATCH 2/3] bonding: only receive ARPs for us

[PATCH 2/3] bonding: only receive ARPs for us

[Jay Vosburgh]

	The ARP validation code only needs ARPs for the bonding device.

Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>


diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 1f263ac..7ec6121 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3427,7 +3427,7 @@ void bond_register_arp(struct bonding *b
 		return;
 
 	pt->type = htons(ETH_P_ARP);
-	pt->dev = NULL; /*bond->dev;XXX*/
+	pt->dev = bond->dev;
 	pt->func = bond_arp_rcv;
 	dev_add_pack(pt);
 }

Re: [PATCH 2/3] bonding: only receive ARPs for us

[Jeff Garzik]

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 	The ARP validation code only needs ARPs for the bonding device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>

I seem to have lost the context of this.  Did this get discussed, and 
need further revision?

The three patches from 2/28/2007 look OK to me, and I just wanted to 
make sure before applying them.

	Jeff

Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH 2/3] bonding: only receive ARPs for us

[Jay Vosburgh]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:

>Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> 	The ARP validation code only needs ARPs for the bonding device.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
>
>I seem to have lost the context of this.  Did this get discussed, and 
>need further revision?

	The further discussion can be (loosely) paraphrased as:

Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>: "Hey, this no workee with IPv6."

Me: "True, but bonding no workee with IPv6 at all."

Andy: "Oh, ok.  Ack."

	After which followed some preliminary yakkage about fixing up
said non-workee IPv6 support.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com

Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH 2/3] bonding: only receive ARPs for us

[Jeff Garzik]

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> 
>> Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>> 	The ARP validation code only needs ARPs for the bonding device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
>> I seem to have lost the context of this.  Did this get discussed, and 
>> need further revision?
> 
> 	The further discussion can be (loosely) paraphrased as:
> 
> Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>: "Hey, this no workee with IPv6."
> 
> Me: "True, but bonding no workee with IPv6 at all."
> 
> Andy: "Oh, ok.  Ack."
> 
> 	After which followed some preliminary yakkage about fixing up
> said non-workee IPv6 support.

thanks :)  I'll make sure the 3 patches go into #upstream-fixes