Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bonding\-devel\]\s+Re\:\s+\[bonding\]\s+compatibilty\s+issues\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:05:24 -0700
... I think this is fine, personally. I defer to Jeff for final judgment, he should be allowed to chime in at least once more.
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00000.html (8,718 bytes)

2. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:49:04 +0300
So here is what I did in the meantime: * Created a version for 2.4 that puts back all old compatibility stuff that was removed either during the propagation set or the cleanup set. * Created a versio
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00005.html (11,267 bytes)

3. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:26:10 -0400
I like this. Chad
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00014.html (10,019 bytes)

4. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:19 -0700
Same here, but I'd like to have a list somewhere of what each of the ABI versions is for and how they're supposed to behave. It's starting to look like we're going to be adding these on a semi-regul
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00016.html (9,517 bytes)

5. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:37:51 +0300
Where should such a list go ? Currently, 0 or none is for doing everything the old way. 1 is for not setting slaves HW addr via ifenslave and leaving them in down state so the driver gets them with t
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00020.html (9,813 bytes)

6. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:57:46 +0300
Jeff, I'm going to need a ruling from you: We understood from David that support of old ioctl definitions (i.e. those mapped to SIOCDEVPRIVATE) needs to be removed in the 2.6 kernel. This will break
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00022.html (9,842 bytes)

7. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:57:35 -0700
Oh, I was thinking either in a comment block (by the ABI version definitions, for example), tacked on to the end of bonding.txt, or maybe in a README.ABI in the bonding/ directory. I'm not too conce
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00097.html (8,658 bytes)

8. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:39:52 -0700
I say: Toast the whatever_OLD guys (the backwards compat ioctls) in both 2.4 and 2.6. Backwards compatibility is good, but there are limits, and I think these have reached their limit. Keep the ABI
/archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00904.html (11,171 bytes)

9. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:36:50 -0400
My recommendations are more towards the middle than either end. I would like to see us get rid of the _OLD ioctls in the 2.6 kernel specifically because it uses the SIOCDEVPRIVATE ioctls. This only
/archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00906.html (12,225 bytes)

10. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:05:24 -0700
... I think this is fine, personally. I defer to Jeff for final judgment, he should be allowed to chime in at least once more.
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00742.html (9,010 bytes)

11. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:49:04 +0300
So here is what I did in the meantime: * Created a version for 2.4 that puts back all old compatibility stuff that was removed either during the propagation set or the cleanup set. * Created a versio
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00747.html (11,419 bytes)

12. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:26:10 -0400
I like this. Chad
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00756.html (10,171 bytes)

13. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:25:19 -0700
Same here, but I'd like to have a list somewhere of what each of the ABI versions is for and how they're supposed to behave. It's starting to look like we're going to be adding these on a semi-regul
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00758.html (9,586 bytes)

14. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:37:51 +0300
Where should such a list go ? Currently, 0 or none is for doing everything the old way. 1 is for not setting slaves HW addr via ifenslave and leaving them in down state so the driver gets them with t
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00762.html (9,965 bytes)

15. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:57:46 +0300
Jeff, I'm going to need a ruling from you: We understood from David that support of old ioctl definitions (i.e. those mapped to SIOCDEVPRIVATE) needs to be removed in the 2.6 kernel. This will break
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00764.html (9,994 bytes)

16. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:57:35 -0700
Oh, I was thinking either in a comment block (by the ABI version definitions, for example), tacked on to the end of bonding.txt, or maybe in a README.ABI in the bonding/ directory. I'm not too conce
/archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00839.html (8,742 bytes)

17. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:39:52 -0700
I say: Toast the whatever_OLD guys (the backwards compat ioctls) in both 2.4 and 2.6. Backwards compatibility is good, but there are limits, and I think these have reached their limit. Keep the ABI
/archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01833.html (11,255 bytes)

18. Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [bonding] compatibilty issues (score: 1)
Author: "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:36:50 -0400
My recommendations are more towards the middle than either end. I would like to see us get rid of the _OLD ioctls in the 2.6 kernel specifically because it uses the SIOCDEVPRIVATE ioctls. This only
/archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01835.html (12,380 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu