Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-04-23 Thread Doug Ledford
On 04/01/13 17:25, Or Gerlitz wrote: Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote: If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), Could you be more specific, I assume you refer to the ISC dhcp bits, which version and which patches? Any version of dhcp server, and the improved-xid and lpf-ib

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-04-01 Thread Or Gerlitz
Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote: If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), Could you be more specific, I assume you refer to the ISC dhcp bits, which version and which patches? AFAIK they don't give you access to their source repo but rather only to drops plus possibly patches

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-27 Thread Doug Ledford
On 03/26/2013 02:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:46:28AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e, isn't it ? I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a function. sizeof(e) looks just

[PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-26 Thread Doug Ledford
If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), they will use AF_PACKET/SOCK_DGRAM pair to send dhcp packets over IPoIB. This has worked since forever if you use OFED kernels or one of the distribution kernels. However, when testing an upstream kernel, it has been broken for a very long

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-26 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 03/26/13 17:24, Doug Ledford wrote: If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), they will use AF_PACKET/SOCK_DGRAM pair to send dhcp packets over IPoIB. This has worked since forever if you use OFED kernels or one of the distribution kernels. However, when testing an upstream

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-26 Thread Roland Dreier
Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e, isn't it ? I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me. I'll apply this patch soon, it's a good catch. -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-26 Thread Doug Ledford
On 03/26/2013 12:46 PM, Roland Dreier wrote: Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e, isn't it ? I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me. I'll apply this patch soon, it's a

Re: [PATCH] ipoib: fix hard_header return value

2013-03-26 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:46:28AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e, isn't it ? I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me. Sizeof is used