netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, <chad@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues
From: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:42:31 +0300
Cc: bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A02A464F1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intel corp.
References: <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A02A464F1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3
Guys,

I'm going to need a ruling here :)
Re-creating those 19 trees each time is killing me and I would like to 
reduce the number of iterations to a minimum.
I'm currently working on putting back all compatibility stuff for 2.4. 
I would like to also get any input/reservations about other issues 
(besides compatibility and the multicast param) so I may get a chance 
to get them all in at once.

Once we get that settled, I can start working on a 2.6 version that 
also handles any compatibility issues (preferrably as the last patch 
of the series). I'm working in the assumption that 2.4-2.6 similarity 
is no longer an option for bonding.

-- 
| Shmulik Hen   Advanced Network Services  |
| Israel Design Center, Jerusalem          |
| LAN Access Division, Platform Networking |
| Intel Communications Group, Intel corp.  |


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>