Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> [2019-10-29 06:23:52]: > The original SO_BINDTODEVICE patches were offered upstream > and there is no interest.
It seems like there's finally some interest[1] and you do a good job over there. > My recent changes would need rebasing to clean them up before upstreaming, > and I am not going to spend any serious time on that since I'd still have to > run my own tree to get the SO_BINDTODEVICE patches and anything else not > accepted upstream. I think, that there's no need for iperf3-ct package. In general, I would like to move iperf3 to package feeds, where I think it belongs[2]. I assume, that nobody is going to object against any additional upstreamable patches on top of iperf3 package if they provide widely useful features/improvements and fixes. It should be enough to just put relevant link to the upstream PR/patchwork/mailinglist to get them included. 1. https://github.com/esnet/iperf/pull/817 2. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2019-August/018399.html -- ynezz _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
