From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964936AbWFHSwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:52:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964935AbWFHSwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:52:05 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:36021 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964931AbWFHSwE (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:52:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20060608.115130.41638734.davem@davemloft.net> To: gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, kaber@coreworks.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <200606081222.54856.gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> References: <200606081150.34018@this-message-has-been-logged> <20060608.200349.81316352.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <200606081222.54856.gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Gerrit Renker Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:22:54 +0100 > I am sorry, I don't at the moment have the time to port to v6 with the > same degree of rigour. You give the impression that you would just disappear from the face of the planet should your work actually be integrated into the kernel tree. So I can only assume that you are posting this for people to play around with, and not for serious consideration of inclusion into the kernel tree. We're trying to avoid this serious problem we have where a group or individual submits on a piece of code, works just hard enough to get it integrated into the tree, then disappears and does not stick around to support the inevitable ensuing bugs and problem reports. Such behavior is totally irresponsible, yet it happens quite a bit. So if you can't be bothered to cook up IPV6 support, chances are you won't stick around to support your code if it went into the tree either.