From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes, bonding update Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:01:45 -0400 Message-ID: <51A8C969.5090005@redhat.com> 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> Reply-To: vyasevic@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Shawn Bohrer , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59310 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752843Ab3EaQCP (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2013 12:02:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <26013.1370015790@death.nxdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 -vlad > > --- > -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com >