netdev - Re: [net-next 6/10] bnx2x: Update vlan

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A954421.2010808@voltaire.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:18:09 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 6/10] bnx2x: Update vlan_features

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 	Patrick, can you clarify one bit about your above statment?  You
> say the bonding features should be an "intersection"; is that a strict
> intersection (i.e., slave1->vlan_features | slave2->vlan_features), or
> does the NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL logic apply for vlan_features as it does
> for regular dev->features (using netdev_incrmenet_features() to combine
> the feature sets)?
>
> 	In other words, if a bond has two slaves, one with, e.g.,
> NETIF_F_SG in its vlan_features, and the other slave has 0 in
> vlan_features, should the bond's vlan_features be NETIF_F_SG, or 0?
>   
Hi Jay,

So we're @ rc7 again and the "bonding: propogate vlan_features to 
bonding master" patch isn't queued yet... can you look into that so we 
have this for 2.6.32?

thanks,

Or.

--
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