From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:03:55 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn Message-ID: <20100304090355.GB29010@lunn.ch> References: <20100303233946.GA24284@Linus-Debian> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100303233946.GA24284@Linus-Debian> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] vis packet format Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:39:46AM +0100, Linus L??ssing wrote: > Hi, > > Marek and I have been chatting a little about the buggy vis raw > output yesterday. And there was either the option to sort the > mixed list on the receiving vis server or on the sender already. > For the second option there was also the idea of changing the vis > packet format accordingly to also save some more overhead. A comment about the mainline development process. Changes which are clearly bug fixes we should be able to get merged into the -rc kernels at any time. Changes which look like development work have to wait until the next merge window. This vis problem about it showing the wrong interface will be in -rc1. It would be nice to get it fixed. We are more likely to get such a fix accepted if it is small and looks like a bug fix. I expect it will get rejected if it is big and looks like development work. So can we develop two fixes? Something small and simple for -rc1 and an optimizing fix which will go into linux-next and then into mainline during the next merge window? Andrew