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

Ben Greear greearb at candelatech.com
Thu Oct 31 12:49:38 EDT 2019

On 10/31/19 5:50 AM, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> 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.

Someone asked me to create a different branch, and asked for some other feature,
but no serious code review or comments that make me think anyone is seriously
looking at the patches.


>> 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

Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list