On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:49:33PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008, Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > [ Joe, I'm not sure that the LOCAL_IN stuff is really related
> > > specifically to IPv6. But you do remind me that those patches
> > > need to be revisited. ]
> > Agree, but we don't want Julius writing code for LOCAL_IN at
> > the same time we're moving the hook elsewhere.
> Horms, when you take the mentioned patch, in which repository will it
> go to first? In other words, which tree should I be using as my base
> to always be up to date? Some netdev git repo or just Linus' main one
IPVS patches almost always go through netdev and Dave Miller.
Dave has a two tree system that works as follows (as far as I
Suppose that the current version that Linus's tree is working towards
is 2.6.24. Then Dave's net-2.6.24 tree would be for bug fixes and
his net-2.6.25 tree would be for new features.
Once Linus releases 2.6.24 then his merge window for will 2.6.25 open
and likely stay open for a couple of weeks. I think that at that
time Dave's net-2.6.24 will be removed and net-2.6.25 will be merged
into Linus's tree. Once the merge window is closed and Linus's tree
is working towards 2.6.25 then net-2.6.25 will become the bugfixes
tree for netdev and net-2.6.26 will be creted to accept new work.
So with a bit of luck the LOCAL_IN stuff might go into net-2.6.26
(I think it would be pushing it to get it into net-2.6.25). In any
case, if you subscribe to this list (which is rather low volume),
then you will probably see any discussions that are going on.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html