From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964968AbWFHUKN (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964966AbWFHUKM (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:12 -0400 Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk ([139.133.204.82]:35774 "EHLO erg.abdn.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964960AbWFHUKK (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:10 -0400 From: Gerrit Renker Organization: Electronics Research Group, UoA To: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:33 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: David Miller , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@coreworks.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <200606081150.34018@this-message-has-been-logged> <20060608.115331.71094388.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606082109.34338.gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting James Morris: | On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote: | | > > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous | > > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon | > > as testing permits. | > | > Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry. | > You make it clear that once you toss this piece of code over | > the wall, you'll disappear. | | Having dealt with more than enough code thrown over the wall in recent | times, I agree. I understand the points of both of you well enough. But how come this is interpreted as saying I'd "toss this piece of code over the wall"? I can understand getting tired of cowboy coding jobs, but there is a misunderstanding here. Of course do and will I maintain that code and every issue related it. I have been maintaining, improving, testing this code for 9 months. The protocol spec (RFC 3828) was developed at University of Aberdeen, and there is continuing research into UDP-Lite here, i.e. it is not a `dead' project. That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port: I can ensure that this (IPv4) code is up to standard and to date, but am lacking the required additional time to implement the same for IPv6. I am trying to contact people to help with the port, but for the moment I will take responsibility only for the IPv4 version. And if there is someone `well-known and respected' who is interested in taking this code over, I would only be happy for him/her to do this. But I won't simply `disappear' :-)