4 messages, 3 authors, 2016-12-08 · open the first message on its own page
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2016-12-07 21:28:48
The merge window is about to open soon, and next week I will be having sporadic internet access while travelling around, therefore I am closing net-next up tonight. Therefore, please do not submit any new features or cleanups for net-next. Bug fixes for problems introduced in net-next are fine, however. Thank you.
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Date: 2016-12-08 03:20:26
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 19:13:45 -0800 Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:28:45 -0500 (EST) David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
The merge window is about to open soon, and next week I will be having sporadic internet access while travelling around, therefore I am closing net-next up tonight. Therefore, please do not submit any new features or cleanups for net-next. Bug fixes for problems introduced in net-next are fine, however. Thank you.I have a couple of patches that I would like to get into net-next, but it is not critical. They replace the hardcoded workarounds with code that negotiates values with the host. Would these be acceptable? Sorry for the delay but needed to test on oldest supported version to ensure negotiation worked.
Never mind, although the changes work on older versions of Windows Server, the performance would be worse. Basically old servers don't do UDP checksum offload but still are capable of handling TCP. Let me work up a better solution that handles both cases.
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Date: 2016-12-08 03:21:38
On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:28:45 -0500 (EST) David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:
The merge window is about to open soon, and next week I will be having sporadic internet access while travelling around, therefore I am closing net-next up tonight. Therefore, please do not submit any new features or cleanups for net-next. Bug fixes for problems introduced in net-next are fine, however. Thank you.
I have a couple of patches that I would like to get into net-next, but it is not critical. They replace the hardcoded workarounds with code that negotiates values with the host. Would these be acceptable? Sorry for the delay but needed to test on oldest supported version to ensure negotiation worked.
From: Timur Tabi <hidden>
Date: 2016-12-08 22:02:34
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:28 PM, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:
Therefore, please do not submit any new features or cleanups for net-next. Bug fixes for problems introduced in net-next are fine, however.
I posted a v3 of my "QDF2400 support" patchset today, although v1 was posted two weeks ago. Am I breaking the rule? I'm really hoping to get those patches into 4.10, if that's okay. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.