From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: IPv6 DNSSL (rfc6106): please include the patch to pass it to user space Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110606.124010.589373967388745310.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080401164904.GA2382@2ka.mipt.ru> <20080408122545.GA31729@2ka.mipt.ru> <19949.87.934341.698604@fisica.ufpr.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: carlos@fisica.ufpr.br Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:43148 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753974Ab1FFTkQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 15:40:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <19949.87.934341.698604@fisica.ufpr.br> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Carlos Carvalho Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:29:11 -0300 > Currently the kernel doesn't pass DNSSL lists received by router > advertsiments (rfc 6106) to user space via netlink. Pierre Ossman sent > a patch for it about 6 months ago: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/75243. Could you please include it > in mainline? This is a very useful feature. The submitter marked that patch as "RFC", he must make a new formal submission and indicate that it's in a final form and ready to be actually applied. You are intelligent enough to find the patch in patchwork, yet you totally ignore the state that the patch was put into and didn't even bother considering what it might mean. What's the point of having something like patchwork if I still have to explain things to people by hand? It doesn't save me any time, since the whole point of patchwork is that I can communicate to the entire world what state the patch is in and that tells what (if anything) can happen next for that patch.