Sorry for the late reply I've been on the road the past few days.
I ACK the patch.
I'll need to think about it some more, but we could probably go a step
further and eliminate the MAC address from the hash as well.
--
Michal Ostrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 21:08 -0800,
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:09:39 +0100
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:55:16 +0100
Below you find a slightly changed version of the patch
I already applied your first patch, so if you have any
fixes to
Hi,
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:38:44 +0100
As noone seems to have an opinion on this: Here is a patch that does
work for me and that should solve the problem as far as that is easily
possible. It is based on the assumption that an interface's
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:55:16 +0100
Below you find a slightly changed version of the patch
I already applied your first patch, so if you have any
fixes to submit please provide them as relative patches
to your original change.
Thank you.
-
To
From: Florian Zumbiehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:38:44 +0100
As noone seems to have an opinion on this: Here is a patch that does
work for me and that should solve the problem as far as that is easily
possible. It is based on the assumption that an interface's ifindex is
Hi,
Well, your opinions are welcome. Plus any hints as to how to fix this.
I'd tend to simply(?) add some more fields to the
{hash,get,set,delete}_item() functions in drivers/net/pppoe.c.
But maybe there is some better way?
As noone seems to have an opinion on this: Here is a patch that does
