Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Or Gerlitz]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
[...]
> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We agreed
> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
> multicast promiscuous mode.

Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.


http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2

Or.

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Jeff Kirsher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
>> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We agreed
>> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
>> multicast promiscuous mode.
> 
> Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> 
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2

I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up and
"beefed" up for that matter.

If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that your
concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=9V5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Hiroshi Shimamoto]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1320 bytes --]

> On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
> >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We agreed
> >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
> >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> >
> > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> >
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> 
> I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up and
> "beefed" up for that matter.
> 
> If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that your
> concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.

I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
I will rewrite it and submit again.

Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.

thanks,
Hiroshi

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Jeff Kirsher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 01:42 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct
> that a
> > >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We
> agreed
> > >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or
> off VF
> > >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> > >
> > > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> > 
> > I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up
> and
> > "beefed" up for that matter.
> > 
> > If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that
> your
> > concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
> 
> I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
> I will rewrite it and submit again.
> 
> Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
> I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.

Yes, I will drop the current patchset in my queue.  I am in the process
of updating my queue, go ahead and make your patches against the
following tree:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
all-queue branch

If you give me an hour or so, I should have my tree updated with all the
patches in my queue currently.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Jeff Kirsher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --]

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 18:52 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 01:42 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > > On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct
> > that a
> > > >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We
> > agreed
> > > >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or
> > off VF
> > > >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > > > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> > > 
> > > I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up
> > and
> > > "beefed" up for that matter.
> > > 
> > > If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that
> > your
> > > concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
> > 
> > I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
> > I will rewrite it and submit again.
> > 
> > Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
> > I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.
> 
> Yes, I will drop the current patchset in my queue.  I am in the process
> of updating my queue, go ahead and make your patches against the
> following tree:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
> all-queue branch
> 
> If you give me an hour or so, I should have my tree updated with all the
> patches in my queue currently.

Ok, correction on the branch name.  After doing some cleanup and future
planning, the following tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
is what you want to use and the branch name is:
unstable-queue

The branch has all the patches currently in my queue.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

RE: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

[Hiroshi Shimamoto]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 2573 bytes --]

> On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 18:52 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 01:42 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > > > On 03/08/2015 02:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >> We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct
> > > that a
> > > > >> custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this.  We
> > > agreed
> > > > >> upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or
> > > off VF
> > > > >> multicast promiscuous mode.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff, please make sure to either respond to my comments on the V2
> > > > > thread (or better) address them for the V3 post.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441852518152&w=2
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142441867218183&w=2
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you that the patch descriptions should be cleaned up
> > > and
> > > > "beefed" up for that matter.
> > > >
> > > > If/when I look to push his series of patches, I will make sure that
> > > your
> > > > concerns are addressed so that we can get a accurate changelog.
> > >
> > > I see that the patchset should have better explanation in changelog.
> > > I will rewrite it and submit again.
> > >
> > > Jeff, are you planning to drop the patchset from your tree?
> > > I just concerned which tree I should create patches against for.
> >
> > Yes, I will drop the current patchset in my queue.  I am in the process
> > of updating my queue, go ahead and make your patches against the
> > following tree:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
> > all-queue branch
> >
> > If you give me an hour or so, I should have my tree updated with all the
> > patches in my queue currently.
> 
> Ok, correction on the branch name.  After doing some cleanup and future
> planning, the following tree:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue.git
> is what you want to use and the branch name is:
> unstable-queue
> 
> The branch has all the patches currently in my queue.

OK, now I have the above branch:
>From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/next-queue
   d7ed747..115403d  master     -> jeff-next/master
 * [new branch]      unstable-queue -> jeff-next/unstable-queue

I will work against that tree.

thanks,
Hiroshi
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥