From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <53998BF3.4040300@meshcoding.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:16:03 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <538314FE.9020808@mindeye.net> <2316167.xuFsC4suZi@diderot> In-Reply-To: <2316167.xuFsC4suZi@diderot> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eOQtBmP6pSbqQSqbFJU7fd8X6m6DLEmaA" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 2/2] batman-adv: Init and use batman interface with correc netns. Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --eOQtBmP6pSbqQSqbFJU7fd8X6m6DLEmaA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/06/14 11:48, Marek Lindner wrote: > On Monday 26 May 2014 12:18:38 Daniel Ehlers wrote: >> Enables us to use batman-adv inside of network namespaces. >> Unfortunately it does not enable us to use multiple batX interfaces >> in different namespaces. This limitation results from using >> debugfs and its unawareness of namespaces. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Ehlers >> --- >> hard-interface.c | 10 ++++++---- >> hard-interface.h | 2 +- >> soft-interface.c | 8 ++++++-- >> soft-interface.h | 2 +- >> sysfs.c | 4 +++- >> translation-table.c | 4 +++- >> 6 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >=20 > Would you mind re-sending both patches while cc'ing the netdev list and= =20 > specifically asking for reviews from the namespace people ? None of us = has any=20 > experience with netns. As such a meaningful review is difficult for us.= >=20 > Furthermore, your commit message should be more explicit about what the= patch=20 > is trying to fix / improve. Things like 'issue #179' are too vague to b= e=20 > understandable by everyone. >=20 Please specify "RFC" instead of "PATCH" in the subject when sending it to netdev, this way nobody thinks that it was sent for a direct inclusion (net-next is closed now, so somebody might not be happy). Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli --eOQtBmP6pSbqQSqbFJU7fd8X6m6DLEmaA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTmYv7AAoJEJgn97Bh2u9eZV8QAKArW2rCBBwEqndm4NApzhsz ERPBzuvLtMo4eb7jdWOGvC/IYanqgbGdRAu+ICL0WvrvYOFVDHsSX/kixBqwMTk2 6DTHQkD2F0a+5V843Xnn/6uQ5NalhMX4/2ZMN4Mtnm1kUr5lxKzJspC2EwD6686V UQUUnQclEQnaJYHvYWRxfi3adMKMkI/JAHCZUAoxFZnRwpJLVi0KCMIRoiXhq77E xkaSAj88/OPud5sOspEQe+ONcKnZaL/c6ec/kpLM8hk5yDMz1udi9CjmuM9BT+PT 7uhdXDs3AzDThQ+3fSkwTU5Pw/EzAdRXUKV0EBu3JID7SejK4I1RSpIWloVaI2ZN ki2Pl6wOF2ORGkjSyMEWRcxEklP1inOv+5TZR6Seb050z2gSbF9t0LFmocjFJ/Bl d29Wyear+1xVqgArHvoTNXeLgELdIm/t9jtMmUzVj6nn7skeMfWVskj8SaCKDPe7 m64keTWeM6Im3GFRvoEEIxP0eSVEPN8QTxrs7uoBjodJiEnTEKNvl1uyHkBonq6i UxKJ+65RuclKthAOfTOwKQSinUpgdvG7lfTYBc1FrW2XOjTIQ4XvXDz+QQHpgun5 5bBkr7YxKR2YLVTLiwLYyiL+cnnv7S4/7otZkTI/pXQiaQbw9pL35HdcaTSgXMNH xgD4Z3a6MiCf4+373BcI =D0f9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eOQtBmP6pSbqQSqbFJU7fd8X6m6DLEmaA--