From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new UDPCP Communication Protocol
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <1294782001.17531.16.camel@wall-e>
References: <1294764515-15356-1-git-send-email-stefani@seibold.net>
	 <1294765273.2927.65.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	 <1294779020.16410.2.camel@wall-e>
	 <20110111.125254.133402589.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <1294780480.17388.2.camel@wall-e>
	 <1294781427.3447.18.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	shemminger@vyatta.com, jj@chaosbits.net, daniel.baluta@gmail.com,
	jochen@jochen.org, hagen@jauu.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	pavel@ucw.cz
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1294781427.3447.18.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Am Dienstag, den 11.01.2011, 22:30 +0100 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> Le mardi 11 janvier 2011 =E0 22:14 +0100, Stefani Seibold a =E9crit :
>=20
> > If nobody need it and no user in the near future out there, why sho=
uld i
> > implement this? That is dogmatic only!
> >=20
>=20
> Sure !
>=20
> Problem is linux kernel code is not your own project.
>=20
> Some community rules must be respected.
>=20
> You call this dogmatic, you are right, since this makes your life les=
s
> easy.
>=20

Sorry thats not right, i only want write code for the trash bin.

> However, for hundred of people working to maintain/improve linux kern=
el
> code, especially in network stacks, this ends in less stress, when a
> problem must be located, and fixed.
>=20
> Note : We are trying to help you, not fighting against you, in the lo=
ng
> term, its a win-win for everybody.
>=20
>=20

Sure, i know this and i would give you and all other contributers a big
thank you for the review.

But it should also okay, to argues against some proposal which makes
currently no sense.