Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+SET\]\[bonding\]\s+cleanup\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+SET\]\[bonding\]\s+cleanup\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:49:59 +0300; Now that all the 2.4<->2.6 synchronizing stuff is done, we are moving forward with the cleanup plan. This set is similar to the previous set I sent on 8/27, but it is based on the latest version tha; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00725.html (12,381 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: has@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:22:36 -0700; This goes a bit beyond straight cleanup; could you explain the rationale for this change? Also, unless I'm missing something, the patch does not appear to update bonding.txt to reflect the fact that; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00737.html (8,950 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: <chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:07:05 +0300; That question rings a bell :) I had this discussion with Deniel Laurent on 8/30 and it sounded like that wouldn't be a problem after all. [from that thread] [snip] The rationale is that the propagati; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00744.html (10,960 bytes)
4. [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:49:59 +0300; Hi, Now that all the 2.4<->2.6 synchronizing stuff is done, we are moving forward with the cleanup plan. This set is similar to the previous set I sent on 8/27, but it is based on the latest version; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01654.html (12,396 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:22:36 -0700; This goes a bit beyond straight cleanup; could you explain the rationale for this change? Also, unless I'm missing something, the patch does not appear to update bonding.txt to reflect the fact that; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01666.html (9,034 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH SET][bonding] cleanup (score: 1): Author: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:07:05 +0300; That question rings a bell :) I had this discussion with Deniel Laurent on 8/30 and it sounded like that wouldn't be a problem after all. [from that thread] [snip] The rationale is that the propagati; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01673.html (11,112 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]