[OpenWrt-Devel] Any interest in a 'ct' iperf3?

[Petr Štetiar]

Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> [2019-10-29 06:23:52]:

> The original SO_BINDTODEVICE patches were offered upstream
> and there is no interest.

It seems like there's finally some interest[1] and you do a good job over there.

> My recent changes would need rebasing to clean them up before upstreaming,
> and I am not going to spend any serious time on that since I'd still have to
> run my own tree to get the SO_BINDTODEVICE patches and anything else not
> accepted upstream.

I think, that there's no need for iperf3-ct package.  In general, I would like
to move iperf3 to package feeds, where I think it belongs[2].

I assume, that nobody is going to object against any additional upstreamable
patches on top of iperf3 package if they provide widely useful
features/improvements and fixes. It should be enough to just put relevant link
to the upstream PR/patchwork/mailinglist to get them included.

1. https://github.com/esnet/iperf/pull/817
2. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2019-August/018399.html

-- ynezz

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel