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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <26013.1370015790@death.nxdomain>
Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 08:56:30 -0700
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	vyasevic@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes, bonding update

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

---
	-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