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

[Hiroshi Shimamoto]

> 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.

thanks,
Hiroshi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the 
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

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

[Jeff Kirsher]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the 
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

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 --]