Please do not submit feature patches until the merge window is over and
Linus releases 2.6.39-rc1, thank you.
Bug fixes are, of course, still ok.
I have merged all of the stragglers from net-2.6 that didn't make it
into 2.6.38 into net-next-2.6, and also just about everything that
is relevant from patchwork.
Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
Eric, I'd like to have the ECN one-liner in the tree soon.
John and Patrick, I assume that after today's pulls I am completely
up to date with everything, feature wise, that will go into the merge
window for wireless and netfilter.
Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
> >not to remove the flags at all?
>
> Well, the following comment:
> <quote>
> /* Private (from user) interface flags (netdevice->priv_flags). */
> </quote>
> leads me to think that these flags should not be used by userspace.
> So maybe it may not be problem to change those values.
These flags should be moved to linux/netdevice.h
From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:56:44 +0100
> So would you leave out if.h hunk out or should I repost?
What makes you think it's a good idea for me to have to do more work?
I have the entire merge window and thousands of other patches to worry
about...
From: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:47:39 -0400
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
>> >not to remove the flags at all?
>>
>> Well, the following comment:
>> <quote>
>> /* Private (from user) interface flags (netdevice->priv_flags). */
>> </quote>
>> leads me to think that these flags should not be used by userspace.
>> So maybe it may not be problem to change those values.
>
> These flags should be moved to linux/netdevice.h
We've had them exposed in a header file without __KERNEL__ protection
for a long time, the cat is therefore out of the bag and it's too late
to just remove them from user visibility as if they were not there.
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:42 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:40:23 +0100
>
> > Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:38:03AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
> >>Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
> >>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
> >>>
> >>>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
> >>>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
> >>>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
> >>>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
> >>>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
> >>>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
> >>>> around origdev later.
> >>>
> >>>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
> >>>
> >>>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
> >>>interface flags are visible to userspace.
> >>
> >>What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
> >>not to remove the flags at all?
> >
> > Well, the following comment:
> > <quote>
> > /* Private (from user) interface flags (netdevice->priv_flags). */
> > </quote>
> > leads me to think that these flags should not be used by userspace.
> > So maybe it may not be problem to change those values.
>
> Comments don't block user applications from using defines we expose
> to them. The person who was wise enough to write that comment should
> have also been wise enough to add appropriate __KERNEL__ protection
> to the definitions.
Though, in this case, the priv_flags are not in any way visible to
user-space, so it would be quite hard to find a use for them!
> They were not, therefore we are stuck with them forever.
So should we also expose struct net_device_stats again? During the
introduction to 64-bit stats I changed and un-exported the definition,
then later had to revert the definition but left it un-exported. This
broke compilation of iproute2, though in the process it revealed an
existing bug: <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/169764>.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:38:57PM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:38:03 +0100
>
>> Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>>>
>>>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
>>>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
>>>> around origdev later.
>>>
>>>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
>>>
>>>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
>>>interface flags are visible to userspace.
>>
>> What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
>> not to remove the flags at all?
>
>You can't remove them, otherwise if it happened to be reference in the
>sources to some app out there, it will start to fail to compile.
>
>This is pretty obvious stuff, I hope :-)
Ok :( So would you leave out if.h hunk out or should I repost?
From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:40:23 +0100
> Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:38:03AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>>>
>>>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
>>>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
>>>> around origdev later.
>>>
>>>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
>>>
>>>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
>>>interface flags are visible to userspace.
>>
>>What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
>>not to remove the flags at all?
>
> Well, the following comment:
> <quote>
> /* Private (from user) interface flags (netdevice->priv_flags). */
> </quote>
> leads me to think that these flags should not be used by userspace.
> So maybe it may not be problem to change those values.
Comments don't block user applications from using defines we expose
to them. The person who was wise enough to write that comment should
have also been wise enough to add appropriate __KERNEL__ protection
to the definitions.
They were not, therefore we are stuck with them forever.
From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:38:03 +0100
> Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>>
>>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
>>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
>>> around origdev later.
>>
>>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
>>
>>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
>>interface flags are visible to userspace.
>
> What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
> not to remove the flags at all?
You can't remove them, otherwise if it happened to be reference in the
sources to some app out there, it will start to fail to compile.
This is pretty obvious stuff, I hope :-)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:01:24PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> John and Patrick, I assume that after today's pulls I am completely
> up to date with everything, feature wise, that will go into the merge
> window for wireless and netfilter.
Just sent a pull request for wireless-2.6 to cover a one-liner to
enable some new firmware for iwlagn -- I nearly forgot!
Thanks,
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:38:03AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>>
>>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
>>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
>>> around origdev later.
>>
>>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
>>
>>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
>>interface flags are visible to userspace.
>
>What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
>not to remove the flags at all?
Well, the following comment:
<quote>
/* Private (from user) interface flags (netdevice->priv_flags). */
</quote>
leads me to think that these flags should not be used by userspace.
So maybe it may not be problem to change those values.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jirka
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 16:01, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Please do not submit feature patches until the merge window is over and
> Linus releases 2.6.39-rc1, thank you.
>
> Bug fixes are, of course, still ok.
>
Understood, thanks Dave.
--
Cheers,
Jeff
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:02:51AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>
>>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>>
>> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
>> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
>> around origdev later.
>
>I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
>
>You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
>interface flags are visible to userspace.
What do you suggest? To remove unused flags and leave gaps there or to
not to remove the flags at all?
Thanks.
Jirka
>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
around origdev later.
Thanks.
Jirka
From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:50:09 +0100
>>Jiri, I know there is your patch set there, but I think you and Changli
>>still need to go back and forth one more time wrt. orig_dev semantics.
>>Since you have been posting this patch set for some time I'm still
>>willing to apply it for this merge window, but please make haste and
>>work out the remaining discussion. Thank you.
>
> Dave, you can apply the rest of the series and leave only the first
> patch (af_packet) out. There's no dependency. We will figure out things
> around origdev later.
I was about to do that but I've found other problems.
You cannot make the modifications you make to linux/if.h, those
interface flags are visible to userspace.
From: Ben Hutchings <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:13:39 +0000
> Though, in this case, the priv_flags are not in any way visible to
> user-space, so it would be quite hard to find a use for them!
There are pieces of infrastructure, such as scripts that turn header
file visible macro values into values usable in other languages such
as perl, that do that wholesale for entire header files and therefore
expect these individual values to be there.
I'm not going to be the person who breaks such things.