On May 29, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Guenter Roeck linux@roeck-us.net wrote:

On 05/29/2015 08:51 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Vivien Didelot [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

----- On May 29, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Or Gerlitz gerlitz.or@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Vivien Didelot
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -854,7 +922,9 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_switch *ds, struct device

*parent,
         if (slave_dev == NULL)
                 return -ENOMEM;

-       slave_dev->features = master->vlan_features;
+       slave_dev->features = master->vlan_features |
+               NETIF_F_VLAN_FEATURES |
+               NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD;

wait... didn't commit 7889cbee8357aaed85898d028829dfb4f75bae2c  remove
NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD?

Indeed, note that this RFC is based on v4.1-rc3. This will become unneeded I
guess.

You should rebase networking patches proposed for the next kernel
against the net-next tree.

quoted

BTW, given the commit message, I didn't really understand why?

M2, I thought it was unsuccessful commit message and made a comment to
the maintainer, he didn't accept it.

Vivien,

sorry for asking for an early set of your patches. Obviously the idea was not
to create trouble for anyone :-(. I wasn't aware that netdev only accepts
patches
which apply to the latest net-next, even if sent as RFC. My fault, I guess.

Maybe next time we can share patches in private first if we have a similar
situation ?

Guenter,

I agree. Maybe sending this to netdev too was a bad idea, my bad.

Scott,

Can I ask details about this NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD flag? Why is it
unneeded?

Thanks,
-v