On 05/29/2015 08:51 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Vivien Didelot
<vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
Hi,
----- On May 29, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Or Gerlitz gerlitz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Vivien Didelot
<vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
@@ -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.
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 ?
Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
