From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:20:41 -0500
>
> This is a 50% resend, rebased on top of net-2.6.
>
> Please pull from 'upstream-davem' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
> upstream-davem
>
> to receive the following up
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:48:54 -0500
> I trust you... Otherwise I wouldn't have volunteered to move my
> upstream from Linus to you :)
...
> So (as you saw in last email)... rebased and resend.
Thanks :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
David Miller wrote:
Jeff, I really don't want to pull that tree in. Please trust me as
your upstream to handle merging issues, as needed.
I trust you... Otherwise I wouldn't have volunteered to move my
upstream from Linus to you :)
My main issues/motivations were:
* quite simply, just fo
From: Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:40:53 +0100
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> [...]
> > Because it forces me to pull Linus's upstream into net-2.6,
> > I don't have any choice in the matter.
>
> Jeff's choice is a bit surprizing. That being said, it would
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> Because it forces me to pull Linus's upstream into net-2.6,
> I don't have any choice in the matter.
Jeff's choice is a bit surprizing. That being said, it would had been nice
to fast-forward net-2.6 from a442585952f137bd4cdb1f2f3166e4157d383b82
to Linus'
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:25:30 -0500
> The advantages include earlier warning of merge problems, and avoidance
> of duplicate commits--if Jeff's done work that depends on patches that
> already upstream, then he either does that work against upstream, o
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:42:57PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:23:02 -0500
>
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:57
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:23:02 -0500
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:57 -0500
> >
> > >
> > > Note: this is based off of Linus's latest commit
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:57 -0500
>
> >
> > Note: this is based off of Linus's latest commit
> > (5d9c4a7de64d398604a978d267a6987f1f4025b7), since all my previous
> > submissions are now u
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:57 -0500
>
> Note: this is based off of Linus's latest commit
> (5d9c4a7de64d398604a978d267a6987f1f4025b7), since all my previous
> submissions are now upstream (thanks!).
The whole point of my not rebasing net-2.6 is so that yo
David Miller wrote:
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:03:14 -0500
Please pull from 'upstream-davem' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-davem
Pulled and pushed out.
As I mentioned to John Linville just now, I'm
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:03:14 -0500
> Please pull from 'upstream-davem' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
> upstream-davem
Pulled and pushed out.
As I mentioned to John Linville just now, I'm going to try
and k
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:47:11PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> [...]
> > > -static struct pci_device_id sis190_pci_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
> > > +static struct pci_device_id sis190_pci_tbl[] = {
> > > { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x0190), 0, 0, 0 },
> >
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> > -static struct pci_device_id sis190_pci_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
> > +static struct pci_device_id sis190_pci_tbl[] = {
> > { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x0190), 0, 0, 0 },
> > { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, 0x0191), 0, 0, 1 },
> > { 0, },
>
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Jeff Garzik (1):
[netdrvr] sis190: build fix
But you did it wrong...
sis190.c b/drivers/net/sis190.c
index b570402..2e9e88b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/sis190.c
+++ b/drivers/net/sis190.c
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ static const struct {
{ "SiS 191 PCI Gigabit Ethernet a
>
> Jeff Garzik (1):
> [netdrvr] sis190: build fix
But you did it wrong...
sis190.c b/drivers/net/sis190.c
> index b570402..2e9e88b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/sis190.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/sis190.c
> @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ static const struct {
> { "SiS 191 PCI Gigabit Ethernet adapter" }
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 01:42:14AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I applied it to #upstream (2.6.25) since forcedeth is not on any
> big-endian platforms AFAIK.
All right, then... I hadn't been sure if it's onboard-only, that's all.
> I have an epic100 card too if you need it (though it sounds li
Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:33:14AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
A couple [minorly] notable wireless bug fixes, and plenty of viro fixes
for obscure issues :)
Heh... FWIW, forcedeth patch (sent your way about two weeks ago) also
belongs in the same set. If you need a resend - tell
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:33:14AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> A couple [minorly] notable wireless bug fixes, and plenty of viro fixes
> for obscure issues :)
Heh... FWIW, forcedeth patch (sent your way about two weeks ago) also
belongs in the same set. If you need a resend - tell...
There's
Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 01:30 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
to receive the following updates:
drivers/net/atl1/atl1_main.c | 19 +++
d
Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>So essentially the ehea device has a 1(+) external ports that may/may
>not be connected, but all lpars share the physical hardware itself,
>which is quite happy to let all the lpars talk to each other essentially
>via loopback even if there is no actua
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 12:19 -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >I admit that I probably don't understand the system architecture of
> >where ehea would be used, but would this
> >cause /sys/class/net/ethX/carrier to be TRUE even if the device has no
> >ca
Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>I admit that I probably don't understand the system architecture of
>where ehea would be used, but would this
>cause /sys/class/net/ethX/carrier to be TRUE even if the device has no
>carrier? That seems quite wrong IMHO. When does ehea not have a
>ca
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 14:17 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > WTF? why would the default be to _not_ propagate carrier state? Are
> > there some mitigating circumstances that require this driver to not
> > notify the stack of carrier on/off? Userspace stuff really should know
>
Dan Williams wrote:
WTF? why would the default be to _not_ propagate carrier state? Are
there some mitigating circumstances that require this driver to not
notify the stack of carrier on/off? Userspace stuff really should know
about the carrier state, and this disables it by default.
The co
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 01:30 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
> upstream-linus
>
> to receive the following updates:
>
> drivers/net/atl1/atl1_main.c | 19 +++
> drivers/
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
true, we should just remove the dev==NULL check
Patch below:
[PATCH] nmclan_cs: Remove bogus (dev==NULL) check in mace_interrupt()
The (dev == NULL) check in drivers/net/pcmcia/nmclan_cs.c:mace_interrupt()
handler is always false
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> true, we should just remove the dev==NULL check
Patch below:
[PATCH] nmclan_cs: Remove bogus (dev==NULL) check in mace_interrupt()
The (dev == NULL) check in drivers/net/pcmcia/nmclan_cs.c:mace_interrupt()
handler is always false, so let's remove it.
true, we should just remove the dev==NULL check
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi Jeff,
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Fix a potential NULL pointer dereference in mace_interrupt() in
> drivers/net/pcmcia/nmclan_cs.c
This oops is _programmatically_ impossible (the only way it can occur
is if the kernel has gone bazooka already anyway ...)
[ BTW even if i
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:13:29 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >...
> > maximilian attems (1):
> > starfire list alpha as 64 bit arch
> >...
> > --- a/drivers/net/starfire.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/starfire.c
> > @@ -15
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>...
> maximilian attems (1):
> starfire list alpha as 64 bit arch
>...
> --- a/drivers/net/starfire.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/starfire.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int full_duplex[MAX_UNITS] = {0, };
> * This SUCKS.
> * We need a
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>> Jeff, might be worth getting the sk_buff leak fix in ppp from
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg27706.html in 2.6.21 too?
>>
>> Don't know how important it is for stable. It was present in 2.6.18 too.
>
> Can you r
On 3/30/2007, "Guennadi Liakhovetski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>>> Jeff, might be worth getting the sk_buff leak fix in ppp from
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg27706.html in 2.6.21 too?
>>>
>>> Don't know how
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Jeff, might be worth getting the sk_buff leak fix in ppp from
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg27706.html in 2.6.21 too?
Don't know how important it is for stable. It was present in 2.6.18 too.
Can you resend the patch to me, please?
Easier for the system t
Jeff, might be worth getting the sk_buff leak fix in ppp from
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg27706.html in 2.6.21 too?
Don't know how important it is for stable. It was present in 2.6.18 too.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:02:43 +0100 (CET)
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Jay Vosburgh (3):
> > bonding: Improve IGMP join processing
>
> ip_mc_rejoin_group: Kill warning about unused variable `in_dev' when
> CONFIG_IP_MULTICAST is
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jay Vosburgh (3):
> bonding: Improve IGMP join processing
ip_mc_rejoin_group: Kill warning about unused variable `in_dev' when
CONFIG_IP_MULTICAST is not set.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/net/ipv4/igmp.c b/net/i
Auke Kok wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Auke Kok wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
Jeff,
is there a reason that you didn't pull the e1000 tree from us? I send
you all the infor
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Auke Kok wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
Jeff,
is there a reason that you didn't pull the e1000 tree from us? I send
you all the information 5 days ago
Auke Kok wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
Jeff,
is there a reason that you didn't pull the e1000 tree from us? I send
you all the information 5 days ago, WITH the changes t
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
Jeff,
is there a reason that you didn't pull the e1000 tree from us? I send you all
the information 5 days ago, WITH the changes that you requested
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> e1000: Do not truncate TSO TCP header with 82544 workaround
This change obsoletes the following change.
> e1000: disable TSO on the 82544 with slab debugging
So the slab debugging patch should be reverted.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ugh. It's not like we want people saying "Hi there" in our changelogs.
Well the _occasional_ friendly greeting might be kinda nice...
-miles
hi mom!
--
Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature. fnord.
-
To unsubscribe from th
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Please pull from the 'upstream-fixes' branch of
> rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
>
> to obtain the fixes described in the attached diffstat/changelog/patch.
Could you please try to edit the emails you apply to
45 matches
Mail list logo
