Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i1QKAhKO009828 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:10:43 -0800 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1QKAbb28202; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:37 -0500 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1QKAb828746; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:37 -0500 Received: from cheetah.davemloft.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i1QKAXeF029636; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:10:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:10:36 -0800 From: "David S. Miller" To: chas3@users.sourceforge.net Cc: chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][ATM]: [lec] put back pressure on network stack Message-Id: <20040226121036.7472a38a.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <200402252354.i1PNs8g5006332@ginger.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> References: <200402252354.i1PNs8g5006332@ginger.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 3608 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: davem@redhat.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:54:09 -0500 "chas williams (contractor)" wrote: > backport of similar patch for 2.6. > > please apply to 2.4 -- thanks ... > # [ATM]: [lec] put back pressure on network stack This conflicts with a previous patch you sent me in this group entitled: [ATM]: [lec] send queued packets immediately after path switch So it fully rejected when I tried to apply this one, it looks to me like the changes this is trying to add are already in there as a result of the previous change.