Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+2\.4\.22\-pre9\-bk\s+\:\s+bonding\s+bug\s+fixes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+2\.4\.22\-pre9\-bk\s+\:\s+bonding\s+bug\s+fixes\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:06:58 +0200; Hi Marcelo, David, Jeff... there are still a few bugs in the current bonding driver. I've reported them several times now, but perhaps not at the right places... So : - the first patch fixes a typo i; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00646.html (12,223 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: lson <dax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:49:07 -0700; So now we have these few bug fixes, and the backport of the 2.6.x version of the bonding code, both submitted on the same day in fact :-) Jeff I'd recommend we put Willy's fixes in if you think they'; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00671.html (8,349 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: avem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:22:15 -0700; I've been looking at Willy's fixes, and the typo (first patch) and locking fix (third patch) both look good to me. The second patch (the dead code warning) points out a real problem, in that the cod; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00673.html (11,933 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:03:39 +0200; Hi Jay ! Perfectly reasonable to me. My patch was not intended to fix it but to allow anybody to comment on this code, which would not have been possible if I removed it myself ;-) IMHO, ARP probes s; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00676.html (10,212 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:50:36 -0400; Applied patches 1 and 3, and will forward to Marcelo today.; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg00684.html (8,196 bytes)
6. [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:06:58 +0200; Hi Marcelo, David, Jeff... there are still a few bugs in the current bonding driver. I've reported them several times now, but perhaps not at the right places... So : - the first patch fixes a typo i; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01335.html (12,223 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:49:07 -0700; So now we have these few bug fixes, and the backport of the 2.6.x version of the bonding code, both submitted on the same day in fact :-) Jeff I'd recommend we put Willy's fixes in if you think they'; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01360.html (8,409 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:22:15 -0700; I've been looking at Willy's fixes, and the typo (first patch) and locking fix (third patch) both look good to me. The second patch (the dead code warning) points out a real problem, in that the cod; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01362.html (12,010 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:03:39 +0200; Hi Jay ! Perfectly reasonable to me. My patch was not intended to fix it but to allow anybody to comment on this code, which would not have been possible if I removed it myself ;-) IMHO, ARP probes s; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01365.html (10,319 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.22-pre9-bk : bonding bug fixes (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:50:36 -0400; Applied patches 1 and 3, and will forward to Marcelo today.; /archives/netdev/2003-07/msg01373.html (8,250 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]