From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Networking: send-to-self [link to non-broken patch this time] Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20020918.182855.47438220.davem@redhat.com> References: <3D8826BE.5090007@candelatech.com> <20020918.155534.102954410.davem@redhat.com> <3D890A51.7000103@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: greearb@candelatech.com In-Reply-To: <3D890A51.7000103@candelatech.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Ben Greear Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:20:49 -0700 David S. Miller wrote: > I don't think I'll be applying this: > > 1) No tcp ipv6 bits I know squat about this, so am reluctant to hack code there. It's hash lookup code, nearly identical to ipv4 version except it's dealing with 128-bit IP addresses instead of 32-bit. You give up way too easily, which leads me to belive you'll disappear just as easily if complicated bugs stop popping up as a result of your changes. This is one of the most important issues I consider when I get a delicate patch to the networking for someone, how fast they throw their arms up in the air. For example, someone like Arnaldo, when he sends me a patch and the whole kernel explodes as a result I know he'll stick around for however long it takes to fix the problems and he won't go "ipv6 looks too complicated" when I ask him to submit a complete version of his changes. You patch should not be a maintainence burden to me. Your attitude tells me it is going to become one. See http://www.candelatech.com/sts2_hack.patch (32-bit only), it contains the missing bits, I'm not good at generating two patch sets (ie pktgen and send-to-self) when they touch the same file... Don't include stuff in the patch that doesn't belong there, this isn't so difficult. The #ifdefs were per request, I personally would like them not to be there either. As far as I can tell, the changes are backwards compatible, so there should be no need for ifdefs. I mean put the ifdefs in a header file such as tcp.h, not in the *.c code. Thanks for looking at them. I can fix the #ifdef cruft, but adding 64bit support or hacking ipv6 is beyond my means of testing at this point, so I cannot make those changes. I don't require you to test the ipv6 portions, I will be able to eyeball them and know if they are right or not, this is how simple the ipv6 version of the tcp bits will be.