Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Or Gerlitz]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
[...]
> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We agreed
> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
> multicast promiscuous mode.

Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.


http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2

Or.

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Jeff Kirsher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
>> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We agreed
>> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
>> multicast promiscuous mode.
> 
> Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> 
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2

I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up and
"beefed" up for that matter.

If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that your
concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=9V5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Jeff Kirsher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --]

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 18:52 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 01:42 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > > On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct
> > that a
> > > >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We
> > agreed
> > > >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or
> > off VF
> > > >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > > > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> > > 
> > > I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up
> > and
> > > "beefed" up for that matter.
> > > 
> > > If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that
> > your
> > > concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
> > 
> > I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
> > I will rewrite it and submit again.
> > 
> > Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
> > I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.
> 
> Yes, I will drop the current patchset in my queue.  I am in the process
> of updating my queue, go ahead and make your patches against the
> following tree:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
> all-queue branch
> 
> If you give me an hour or so, I should have my tree updated with all the
> patches in my queue currently.

Ok, correction on the branch name.  After doing some cleanup and future
planning, the following tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
is what you want to use and the branch name is:
unstable-queue

The branch has all the patches currently in my queue.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]