On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:02 PM Martin Schiller wrote:
>
> On 2020-11-18 15:47, Xie He wrote:
> >
> > But... Won't it be better to handle L2 connections in L2 code?
> >
> > For example, if we are running X.25 over XOT, we can decide in the XOT
> > layer whether and when we reconnect in case the T
On 2020-11-18 15:47, Xie He wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:59 AM Martin Schiller wrote:
---
Changes to v2:
o restructure complete patch-set
o keep netdev event handling in layer3 (X.25)
But... Won't it be better to handle L2 connections in L2 code?
For example, if we are running X.25 over
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:59 AM Martin Schiller wrote:
>
> ---
> Changes to v2:
> o restructure complete patch-set
> o keep netdev event handling in layer3 (X.25)
But... Won't it be better to handle L2 connections in L2 code?
For example, if we are running X.25 over XOT, we can decide in the XOT
---
Changes to v2:
o restructure complete patch-set
o keep netdev event handling in layer3 (X.25)
o add patch to fix lapb_connect_request() for DCE
o add patch to handle carrier loss correctly in lapb
o drop patch for x25_neighbour param handling
this may need fixes/cleanup and will be resubmitte
