From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 0/3] l2tp: remove unused fields in struct
 l2tp_parm
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:15:21 +0200
Message-ID: <20180727151521.GD1487@alphalink.fr>
References: <cover.1532685939.git.g.nault@alphalink.fr>
 <20180727075712.65dbc416@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zimbra.alphalink.fr ([217.15.80.77]:40715 "EHLO
        zimbra.alphalink.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730561AbeG0Qhr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:37:47 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180727075712.65dbc416@xeon-e3>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 07:57:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:26:28 +0200
> Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Several fields of struct l2tp_parm are handled by create_session() but
> > can't actually be set by user.
> > Most of these fields can also be set by get_response(), but are ignored
> > afterwards.
> > 
> > Since these fields can't have any visible effect, let's just remove
> > them.
> > 
> > Guillaume Nault (3):
> >   l2tp: drop data_seq
> >   l2tp: drop mtu
> >   l2tp: drop lns_mode
> > 
> >  ip/ipl2tp.c | 13 -------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> These make sense for iproute2 next
These patches haven't been rejected in patchwork. Does that mean that
David A. will pick them up? Or should I repost to iproute2-next anyway?