From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Toppins Subject: Re: [PATCH linux v3 net-next 0/5] add netlink support for new lacp bonding parameters Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 11:50:20 -0400 Message-ID: <5550CFBC.9050805@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <20150511.110004.649964826481502303.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, shm@cumulusnetworks.com, razor@blackwall.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175]:33011 "EHLO mail-qc0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753729AbbEKPuW (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 11:50:22 -0400 Received: by qcvo8 with SMTP id o8so47254614qcv.0 for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 08:50:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150511.110004.649964826481502303.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/11/15 11:00 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Jonathan Toppins > Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 00:01:54 -0700 > >> This is a resubmit of Mahesh's last 3 bonding patches from this series >> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142432864626179&w=2) with one >> additional kernel patch which adds the netlink bits. I have noted any >> modifications I did to the original patches just above my signoff line. >> Patch 5 is the iproute2 support for these bonding options. All patches >> were coded against the net-next branch of their respective projects. >> >> v2: >> * rebased >> * only send these new parameters via netlink when bond is in mode 4 >> * fixed ad_actor_sys_prio to be 0xFFFF by default even when the bond >> is initially created in mode 0 and switched to mode 4 >> >> v3: >> * reverted changes to bond_option_ad_actor_system_set() from v1 in Mahesh's >> patch "bonding: Allow userspace to set actors' macaddr in an AD-system." >> Instead implementing all setting in the option specific set function as >> Nik suggested. > > Series applied, thanks. > > There are actually 4 patches in this series, so this subject should have > said "0/4" instead of "0/5" :-) > Thanks David, noted for next time, apologies for confusion.