From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Cheneau Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] 6lowpan: Some more bug fixes Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:49:28 +0200 Message-ID: <383f66ae460548de6f930b0f1c244e5a@amnesiak.org> References: <1350965397-12384-1-git-send-email-tony.cheneau@amnesiak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "David S. Miller" , , , Alan Ott To: Alexander Smirnov Return-path: Received: from ns.amnesiak.org ([95.130.11.136]:40456 "EHLO amnesiak.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756149Ab2JYOty (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:49:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Alexander, Thank you for your comments. See my answer inline. Le 25.10.2012 06:52, Alexander Smirnov a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > Hi, > [...] > 1. The series is quite huge what makes it difficult for the review.=20 > It > would be better to split it into one-two and submit separately (not > simultaneously). OK. Will do. > 2. Could you also please provide some notes about how have you tested > these changes (logs, plain text)? Do I need to check your changes > locally on my desk? If so I need some instructions. I'm not sure what you are asking here. There was some more debugging=20 printk, that I removed because they were too verbose. Mostly, I test my= =20 patch with few userspace program, like ping6, iperf (both for TCP and=20 UDP) and ssh. I also wrote a TCP and a UDP echo server, so as to test=20 fragmentation in more details. For most functional patches, I usually=20 confirm through wireshark that the packets indeed look the way they=20 should (this, I've done it for patch 11 for example). But I don't have=20 any automated scripts to check for regression. I can provide you the=20 script I use to configure nodes if needed (but it pretty straighward an= d=20 should look like your own scripts). I'm not sure that really answers your question. > 3. Please DO NOT submit patches like: this patch fixes blablabla=20 > which > isn't in the kernel yet (like patch 13,15). I have no clue what you > have locally on your laptop and what you will send in some time. I'd > like to see here the working code, not a references to TBD. I'm OK with removing patch 13 (I'll introduce it alongside the serial=20 driver later on). I'm not so OK with removing patch 15, or at least, it= =20 would require some more testing in other parts of the code. Basically,=20 the TBD are placeholder for when the Association Request/Response will=20 be reimplemented. I introduced it because otherwise, .assoc_req and=20 =2Eassoc_resp entries of mac802154_mlme_wpan would go uninitialized and= =20 would cause kernel crash when called. I could have modified the calling= =20 code to deal with that, but I thought these primitives were meant to be= =20 re-implemented soon anyway. > 4. The reference to linux-zigbee project isn't an occasion for me to > apply this code to this tree. I have no goal to merge all this fun to > mainline due to several things in linux-zigbee kernel work NOT > according to the standard (mostly it's a timing problems) and global > refactoring needed. I don't understand what you are talking about here. I would guess that=20 you are talking about patch 15. If so, my answer is the following, whil= e=20 I understand your effort to refactor linux-zigbee code and fix things=20 along the way, some code went through net-next that cause crashes. My=20 pragmatic approach is to try to fix it before more people use it, even=20 through it might not always be the most elegant way to do it. Regards, Tony