netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 12:01:45 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes, bonding
 update

On 05/31/2013 11:56 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:31:55AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>>> 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 <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
>>
>>>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 <vyasevic@...hat.com>

-vlad

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html