[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [SET 2][PATCH 2/8][bonding] Propagating master'ssettings toslaves

To: <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [SET 2][PATCH 2/8][bonding] Propagating master'ssettings toslaves
From: Shmulik Hen <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:51:22 +0300
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <laurent.deniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, <bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A0251E6B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intel corp.
References: <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A0251E6B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 05:29 pm, jamal wrote:

[copied from another thread]
> Some of this bonding stuff is pretty scary.

> You should start thinking 2.7.

I stand corrected. From your original replay above, I thought you 
meant we're doing this all wrong for the current implementation.

> > Taking into account the two statements I made above:
> > Do you think that what we're doing right now might interfere with
> > what Jamal is suggesting ?
> > Wouldn't it be possible to do things the old way first and than
> > convert everything to the new way ?
> > Shouldn't all this be a part of a totally new project like
> > "bonding2"
> yes, this would be next gen - 2.7 or above target.

I read your answer, yes, but for which question :)

| Shmulik Hen   Advanced Network Services  |
| Israel Design Center, Jerusalem          |
| LAN Access Division, Platform Networking |
| Intel Communications Group, Intel corp.  |

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>