From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Date: 2021-02-02 10:51:19
Hello David,
On 29.01.21 16:50, David Ahern wrote:
On 1/25/21 3:40 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
The len8_dlc element is filled by the CAN interface driver and used for CAN
frame creation by the CAN driver when the CAN_CTRLMODE_CC_LEN8_DLC flag is
supported by the driver and enabled via netlink configuration interface.
Add the command line support for cc-len8-dlc for Linux 5.11+
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
ip/iplink_can.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
applied to iproute2-next
Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
Regards,
Oliver
From: David Ahern <hidden> Date: 2021-02-02 15:39:18
On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
net-next.
Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel version.
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Date: 2021-02-02 17:38:25
On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote:
On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
net-next.
Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel version.
Oh, I followed the commits from iproute2 until the new include files
from (in this case) 5.11 pre rc1 had been updated (on 2020-12-24):
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/commit/?id=2953235e61eb672bbdd2de84eb5b91c388f9a9b5
I thought the uapi updates in iproute2 are *always* pulled from the
kernel and not from iprout2-next which was new to me.
Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become
available in linux-next then?
Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for
the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject).
Regards,
Oliver
From: David Ahern <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 15:48:50
On 2/2/21 10:30 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote:
quoted
On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
net-next.
Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel
version.
I sync kernel headers for iproute2-next with net-next, not linux-next.
Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become
available in linux-next then?
Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for
the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject).
From a cursory look it appears CAN commits do not go through the netdev
tree yet the code is under net/can and the admin tool is through
iproute2 and netdevs. Why is that? If features patches flowed through
net-next, we would not have this problem.
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Date: 2021-02-03 19:08:49
On 03.02.21 16:47, David Ahern wrote:
On 2/2/21 10:30 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote:
quoted
On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
net-next.
Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel
version.
I sync kernel headers for iproute2-next with net-next, not linux-next.
Ok. Got it.
quoted
Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become
available in linux-next then?
Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for
the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject).
From a cursory look it appears CAN commits do not go through the netdev
tree yet the code is under net/can and the admin tool is through
iproute2 and netdevs. Why is that? If features patches flowed through
net-next, we would not have this problem.
CAN commits go through linux-can-next -> net-next. Same for linux-can ->
net.
The len8_dlc patches also went through linux-can-next -> net-next -> net
-> linux
iproute2 provides the configuration interface for CAN drivers under
driver/net/can only.
My only fault was, that I did not send the patch for iproute2-next at
the time when the len8_dlc patches were in net-next, right?
I was just not aware of iproute2-next.
The former patches I posted for iproute2 were always applied by Stephen
to the iproute2 tree directly.
Regards,
Oliver
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Date: 2021-02-04 20:33:26
On 04.02.21 04:15, David Ahern wrote:
On 2/3/21 12:04 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
quoted
My only fault was, that I did not send the patch for iproute2-next at
the time when the len8_dlc patches were in net-next, right?
yes
Now that I know about iproute2-next, I will do better next time.
Can you please apply this simple patch intended for Linux 5.11 to the
iproute2 tree this time?
Thanks,
Oliver