This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Trying to adapt Olaf's vif MTU patch for EL5.6's 2.6.18-

To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Trying to adapt Olaf's vif MTU patch for EL5.6's 2.6.18-238.9 kernel - patch in-line.
From: Digimer <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:31:07 -0400
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Teck Choon Giam <giamteckchoon@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:32:56 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110418162223.GC20557@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4DAA4602.8080701@xxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTikGwJ_DuRMa9nN6H+g336bZb+0mAg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DAB0A35.2020207@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4DAB1A7E.1030409@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20110418162223.GC20557@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9
On 04/18/2011 12:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
>> I've created two rhbz tickets for these two patches.
>> Patch for vif MTU:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697021
>> Patch for vif-bridge:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697310
> You might want to mention where those patches exist upstream. As in,
> did you back-port them from  2.6.32, 2.6.38 (or 2.6.39) and if so
> what git tree.

Looking at Olaf's original email, it looks like the patch was created
against 2.6.18. There are some git hashes in the thread*, but I couldn't
say which is best to reference. I'll link to the original thread again
and ask those wiser than I to sort out which hash(es) is(are) most


E-Mail: digimer@xxxxxxxxxxx
AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin:  http://nodeassassin.org

Xen-devel mailing list