Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*PATCH\:\s+rtnetlink\s+explicit\s+flags\s+setting\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*PATCH\:\s+rtnetlink\s+explicit\s+flags\s+setting\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: ert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:32:37 -0400; I think i may have missed a few spots. Thomas it would be worth creating a macro which takes flags as input as well to replace things along the lines of: nlh = NLMSG_PUT(skb, pid, seq, event, sizeof(; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01112.html (9,106 bytes)
2. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:50:10 +0200; * jamal <1117197157.6688.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 08:32 Right, proposal: -- 6204e59b7aa59cf79632003c621e521db1297b1b/include/linux/netlink.h (mode:100644) +++ uncommitted/include/li; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01113.html (10,658 bytes)
3. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: raf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:58:51 -0400; How about introducing NLMSG_NEW and leave NLMSG_PUT where it is? This way we could do incremental updates. If there are not too many of those NLMSG_PUT around, then it shouldnt be an issue. The first; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01115.html (9,670 bytes)
4. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:13:20 +0200; * jamal <1117202331.6383.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 09:58 That is what the patch does but the diff looks a bit irritating. 1) Introduce NLMSG_NEW to take flags 2) Make NLMSG_PUT call; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01117.html (10,015 bytes)
5. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:01:31 -0400; Yikes - sorry i glossed over the patch. Dave please apply the patch i posted into your tree and then we can follow with this other stuff. Actually Thomas, you can probably apply my patch on your side; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01127.html (10,539 bytes)
6. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: raf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:19:13 +0200; * jamal <1117206091.6383.73.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 11:01 Sure, I can come up with a patchset today which will include: o the new NLMSG_NEW macro o your patch adopted to use the new N; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01129.html (10,272 bytes)
7. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: inger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:57:46 -0400; Sounds reasonable. cheers, jamal PS:- Have to disappear for a few hours so they maybe latency in further responses.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01133.html (10,715 bytes)
8. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: avinandan.arakali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:59:35 +0200; * jamal <1117209466.6383.106.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 11:57 I took your patch, converted it to use NLMSG_NEW and finished converting all the modules that you started. Yet unconverted a; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01140.html (11,184 bytes)
9. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:12:29 -0400; Thats the patchset 1/2 and 2/2, correct? I didnt find any issues with these as far as PID extrapolation. Do you mean the two patches? Those looked fine to me; i.e its mostly the patch i posted this m; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01177.html (11,749 bytes)
10. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 03:28:10 +0200; * jamal <1117242749.6251.15.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 21:12 I should have written, yet unchecked. Yes, those two patches. My part comes directly out of my fingers and is only compile te; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01178.html (11,947 bytes)
11. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: l <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:48:13 -0400; I did check netfilter, net/sched/ tcp_diag, xfrm and they do things right. Hrm - you should probably have said that in the patch text ;-> I did test the one i sent - basic things and by code inspecti; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01180.html (13,042 bytes)
12. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: rzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 14:18:27 +0200; * jamal <1117244893.6251.41.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 21:48 OK. I wanted to have some time for testing today without the need to resubmit the patches. ;-> I just tested both patches for; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01192.html (11,143 bytes)
13. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: o Andreoli <cavok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:00:41 -0400; fair enough ;-> We have another problem. What tree is this against? Both patches have failures patching against latest davem and linus git trees. I am kind of distracted right now but I could fix thi; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01201.html (11,354 bytes)
14. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:16:37 +0200; * jamal <1117296041.19563.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-28 12:00 It's against my davem-pending tree which should reflect the current state of davem's tree so they _should_ apply on his side.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01202.html (11,239 bytes)
15. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: rian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 05:39:51 -0400; Now you really have to send some swiss chocolate over ;-> It still doesnt apply to Davems latest tree. Almost very close to what i do - which could be improved or you keep a few hundred trees. Jeff G; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01231.html (12,482 bytes)
16. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: ant Grundler <iod00d@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:43:38 -0700 (PDT); Please use explicit "unsigned int flags" instead of "unsigned flags".; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01252.html (9,164 bytes)
17. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 00:26:46 +0200; * David S. Miller <20050531.144338.112623594.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-31 I converted this already in the two patches later in the thread.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01261.html (9,461 bytes)
18. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: ller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:31:25 -0700 (PDT); I see, thanks for pointing this out.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01263.html (9,078 bytes)
19. PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:32:37 -0400; I think i may have missed a few spots. Thomas it would be worth creating a macro which takes flags as input as well to replace things along the lines of: nlh = NLMSG_PUT(skb, pid, seq, event, sizeof(; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg02401.html (9,106 bytes)
20. Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:50:10 +0200; * jamal <1117197157.6688.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 08:32 Right, proposal: -- 6204e59b7aa59cf79632003c621e521db1297b1b/include/linux/netlink.h (mode:100644) +++ uncommitted/include/li; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg02402.html (10,722 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]