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]

Message-ID: <20130531152812.GB2910@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 10:28:12 -0500
From:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	fubar@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, vyasevic@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes,
 bonding update

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.

--
Shawn
--
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