Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Patch\s+resubmission\:\s+RFC2863\s+operstatus\s+for\s+2\.5\.50\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 23:22:33 +0100
Hi David, here is an updated version with the following changes: -split the patch: First adds the userspace notification, the other (depends on the first) RFC2863 semantics. I am aware that we are we
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00008.html (24,550 bytes)

2. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:52:57 -0500
Pardon my dumb question, but what parts of RFC2863 require kernel additions over and above your link state patch? Your second patch I am less enthusiastic about than the first... :( I wonder if users
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00011.html (9,156 bytes)

3. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:44:58 +0100
the kernel does not know LOWERLAYERDOWN, TESTING, DORMANT, UNKNOWN. They can be useful when drivers adopt to this scheme. Well, with your opinion I count two against two: I want it, Jamal has propos
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00013.html (9,057 bytes)

4. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Stefans curtrent patch makes the info available via netlink. What dont you like about it Jeff? Take a quick look at RFC2863 and scan for IfAdminStatus and IfOperStatus. The modelling RFC2863 has is p
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00019.html (9,100 bytes)

5. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:42:06 -0500
jamal wrote: Stefans curtrent patch makes the info available via netlink. He has two patches: link change notification, and RFC2863 operstatus. I agree with the first one and support its inclusion; t
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00025.html (11,752 bytes)

6. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:15:26 -0500
Stefan Rompf wrote: Your second patch I am less enthusiastic about than the first... :( Well, with your opinion I count two against two: I want it, Jamal has proposed the semantics, and Alexey doesn'
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00026.html (9,668 bytes)

7. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:39:23 -0800 (PST)
I've applied your first patch to 2.5.x, I'm awaiting more discussion wrt. Jeff's comments on your second one :-) Thanks.
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00027.html (8,683 bytes)

8. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:27:39 -0500 (EST)
I somehow deleted the original email he sent with the patches. What two patches? I thought he had one which was a backport and another which was for 2.5.x (sorry, i actually have seen those patches a
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00053.html (12,613 bytes)

9. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:10:58 +0100
I've splitted the patch into userspace notification and RFC2863 part to separate the features clearly and get the discussion running again. That seem to have worked ;-) As an example, how do we flag
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00056.html (10,416 bytes)

10. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:55:32 -0500
I would summarize his patch as adding variable to represent literally ifOperStatus, along with a lock and apparatus to set this variable. The value may be deduced, without having to literally track i
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00059.html (12,247 bytes)

11. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:21:14 -0500 (EST)
If it can be deduced then no point in tracking it. i think my shepherding of the patch is done at this point. I'll let you take it from here. BTW, I still think theres need to clean up the qdisc queu
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00067.html (8,910 bytes)

12. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 23:22:33 +0100
Hi David, here is an updated version with the following changes: -split the patch: First adds the userspace notification, the other (depends on the first) RFC2863 semantics. I am aware that we are we
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00153.html (24,669 bytes)

13. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:52:57 -0500
Pardon my dumb question, but what parts of RFC2863 require kernel additions over and above your link state patch? Your second patch I am less enthusiastic about than the first... :( I wonder if users
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00156.html (9,280 bytes)

14. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:44:58 +0100
Hi, the kernel does not know LOWERLAYERDOWN, TESTING, DORMANT, UNKNOWN. They can be useful when drivers adopt to this scheme. Well, with your opinion I count two against two: I want it, Jamal has pro
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00158.html (9,225 bytes)

15. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Stefans curtrent patch makes the info available via netlink. What dont you like about it Jeff? Take a quick look at RFC2863 and scan for IfAdminStatus and IfOperStatus. The modelling RFC2863 has is p
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00164.html (9,124 bytes)

16. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:42:06 -0500
He has two patches: link change notification, and RFC2863 operstatus. I agree with the first one and support its inclusion; the second one I question its need. (just for context, I am referring to me
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00170.html (12,120 bytes)

17. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:15:26 -0500
Well, with your opinion I count two against two: I want it, Jamal has proposed the semantics, and Alexey doesn't want to waste a single bit of a netlink message for this. Well, for generic net stack
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00171.html (9,920 bytes)

18. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:39:23 -0800 (PST)
I've applied your first patch to 2.5.x, I'm awaiting more discussion wrt. Jeff's comments on your second one :-) Thanks.
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00172.html (8,852 bytes)

19. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:27:39 -0500 (EST)
I somehow deleted the original email he sent with the patches. What two patches? I thought he had one which was a backport and another which was for 2.5.x (sorry, i actually have seen those patches a
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00198.html (12,635 bytes)

20. Re: Patch resubmission: RFC2863 operstatus for 2.5.50 (score: 1)
Author: Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:10:58 +0100
Hi, I've splitted the patch into userspace notification and RFC2863 part to separate the features clearly and get the discussion running again. That seem to have worked ;-) As an example, how do we f
/archives/netdev/2002-12/msg00201.html (10,464 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu