| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6, Sam Ravnborg |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Fw: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:119, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues, Jay Vosburgh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |