From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] netfilter: preparatory patches for set extensions Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 04:48:46 +0000 Message-ID: <20150322044846.GB31192@acer.localdomain> References: <1426952290-18962-1-git-send-email-kaber@trash.net> <20150321230447.GA31869@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: pablo@netfilter.org, davem@davemloft.net, tgraf@suug.ch, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150321230447.GA31869@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 22.03, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:38:08PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > > @Dave and Pablo: these patches apply on top of nf-next and a bunch > > of patches I just sent to Pablo, but also need Herbert's recent > > changes in net-next. Additionally I have more patches coming up > > which depend on these changes. In order to simplify things, I'd > > suggest to have the rhashtable change go through Pablo's tree if > > you don't mind. > > I have more patches (multiple rehashing) coming up that will > conflict with this. I have a set of about 30 patches myself which depend on this simple one liner, so I'd appreciate if we can come to a quick resolution here so I can continue merging them instead of redoing them every second day.