On 10/31/19 5:50 AM, Petr Štetiar wrote:
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.
Someone asked me to create a different branch, and asked for some other feature,
but no serious code review or comments that make me think anyone is seriously
looking at the patches.
Thanks,
Ben
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
--
Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
