From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v9 00/11] vxlan: add ipv6 support Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:42:58 +0800 Message-ID: <1369708978.8181.39.camel@cr0> References: <1369628193-14925-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <87a9ngddfv.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <8761y4dcm7.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20130527.023039.165030551447378095.davem@davemloft.net> <1369652446.8181.10.camel@cr0> <87ehcsbmfk.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Mork Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25502 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758630Ab3E1CnI (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2013 22:43:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ehcsbmfk.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 15:07 +0200, Bj=C3=B8rn Mork wrote: > Cong Wang writes: >=20 > > On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 02:30 -0700, David Miller wrote: > >>=20 > >> And you had the nerve to complain when we were unwilling to merge = this > >> not-ready garbage into 3.10?!?! Are you kidding me?=20 > > > > Please fix the netfilter erorrs too: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=3Dnetfilter-devel&m=3D136849956816787&w=3D2 > > > > which were reported by me two weeks ago, NO ONE cares! >=20 > I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. It is true that no one replies to my report, maybe someone fixed it without Cc'ing me, but how could I know that since my RH email doesn't subscribe any mailing list. >=20 > > Just complaining about vxlan seems unfair. :) >=20 > Would you prefer that I didn't report this bug? Do you believe the > existence of other bugs means that you don't need to test your patche= s? > Are your for real? Obviously no, you take a wrong point. My point is you should care other IPV6=3Dm errors as much as you care f= or vxlan ones. I don't see any reply from you when I reported the netfilte= r errors, even after two weeks! For me this sounds like you are ignoring them on purpose, although I don't mind... >=20 > Give me one reason why I should bother even looking at your next > submission. Just to make it clear: No comments from me the next tim= e > you post this set only means that I didn't test it. Which seems > likely given your ability to take any feedback at all. You said "I see that you don't bother listen to advice", this is OBVIOUSLY not true, I really did compile with three different configs, just due a stupid mistake I took my IPV6=3Dn config as IPV6=3Dm config. Your conclusion like this one is really offending, and I can't see any respect for my work from your reply. I am sorry for my mistake, and I always welcome for any feedbacks, but just please be with respect. If next time I still see offending reply like this, I will just ignore you. Sorry, but this is my right. :(