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