From: Wang Weidong <weidong1991.wang@gmail.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>,
Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, davem@davemloft.net,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:24:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A73240.900@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A72780.4020405@gmail.com>
From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
On 2013/12/10 22:38, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 09:34 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>> From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
>>
>> On 2013/12/10 20:51, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2013 03:46 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>>>> v5 -> v6
>>>> -patch1: do rto_min/max socket option handling in its own patch, and
>>>> fix the check of rto_min/max.
>>>> -patch2: do rto_min/max sysctl handling in its own patch.
>>>> -patch3: add Suggested-by Daniel.
>>>
>>> Fyi, for future submission, please keep the full changelog.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, Thanks! I will do this in future submission.
>>
>>> I would have much rather liked seeing you with finishing the last
>>> 2 patches first, and then approach the newly introduced 1st one
>>> in this series for now. You still haven't fully fixed whitespace
>>> issues in your second patch in the function itself which I hoped
>>> you would address, but fair enough ...
>>>
>>
>> As Vlad's suggestion, I split it to 2 patches. Should I combine these
>> 2 patch to one?
>
> No, they deserve a separate patch. What Daniel meant was that you
> should have addressed the sysctl control issues first. It doesn't
> really matter all that much here. In fact the last whitespace patch
> is the one that doesn't really fit in this series as it fixes something
> quite unrelated to the reset of the series, but we are talking semantics.
>
> I am fine with the series as long as you address the spacing issue
> in the new proc handler functions.
>
Nice, I will fix them in v7.
Regards.
Wang
>>
>> The second patch, do you mean that?
>> I should do it from
>>
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_min(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_max(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>>
>> to
>>
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_min(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_max(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>>
>> Just line up to first line? And I should change the third patch as well.
>
> No, the prototypes are fine. I sent a separate comment pointing out
> the spacing issue.
>
> -vlad
>
>>
>> Regards.
>> Wang
>>
>>>> Wang Weidong (3):
>>>> sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max in setsockopt
>>>> sctp: add check rto_min and rto_max in sysctl
>>>> sctp: fix up a spacing
>>>>
>>>> net/sctp/socket.c | 32 +++++++++++++++--------
>>>> net/sctp/sysctl.c | 76
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>> 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wang Weidong <weidong1991.wang@gmail.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>,
Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, davem@davemloft.net,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:24:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A73240.900@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A72780.4020405@gmail.com>
From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
On 2013/12/10 22:38, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 09:34 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>> From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
>>
>> On 2013/12/10 20:51, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2013 03:46 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>>>> v5 -> v6
>>>> -patch1: do rto_min/max socket option handling in its own patch, and
>>>> fix the check of rto_min/max.
>>>> -patch2: do rto_min/max sysctl handling in its own patch.
>>>> -patch3: add Suggested-by Daniel.
>>>
>>> Fyi, for future submission, please keep the full changelog.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, Thanks! I will do this in future submission.
>>
>>> I would have much rather liked seeing you with finishing the last
>>> 2 patches first, and then approach the newly introduced 1st one
>>> in this series for now. You still haven't fully fixed whitespace
>>> issues in your second patch in the function itself which I hoped
>>> you would address, but fair enough ...
>>>
>>
>> As Vlad's suggestion, I split it to 2 patches. Should I combine these
>> 2 patch to one?
>
> No, they deserve a separate patch. What Daniel meant was that you
> should have addressed the sysctl control issues first. It doesn't
> really matter all that much here. In fact the last whitespace patch
> is the one that doesn't really fit in this series as it fixes something
> quite unrelated to the reset of the series, but we are talking semantics.
>
> I am fine with the series as long as you address the spacing issue
> in the new proc handler functions.
>
Nice, I will fix them in v7.
Regards.
Wang
>>
>> The second patch, do you mean that?
>> I should do it from
>>
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_min(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_max(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>>
>> to
>>
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_min(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>> +static int proc_sctp_do_rto_max(struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
>> + loff_t *ppos);
>>
>> Just line up to first line? And I should change the third patch as well.
>
> No, the prototypes are fine. I sent a separate comment pointing out
> the spacing issue.
>
> -vlad
>
>>
>> Regards.
>> Wang
>>
>>>> Wang Weidong (3):
>>>> sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max in setsockopt
>>>> sctp: add check rto_min and rto_max in sysctl
>>>> sctp: fix up a spacing
>>>>
>>>> net/sctp/socket.c | 32 +++++++++++++++--------
>>>> net/sctp/sysctl.c | 76
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>> 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-10 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-10 2:46 [PATCH v6 0/3] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max in setsockopt Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] sctp: add check rto_min and rto_max in sysctl Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 14:34 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-10 14:34 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-10 15:18 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 15:18 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 15:21 ` Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-10 15:21 ` Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-10 15:42 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 15:42 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] sctp: fix up a spacing Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 2:46 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 12:51 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-10 12:51 ` Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-10 14:34 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 14:34 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-10 14:38 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-10 14:38 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-10 15:24 ` Wang Weidong [this message]
2013-12-10 15:24 ` Wang Weidong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52A73240.900@gmail.com \
--to=weidong1991.wang@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
--cc=wangweidong1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.