From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kirill Korotaev Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 1/4] Network namespaces: cleanup of dev_base list use Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:08:37 +0400 Message-ID: <44A149F5.2060204@sw.ru> References: <20060626134945.A28942@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <44A0D755.5090204@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrey Savochkin , dlezcano@fr.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:50267 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161079AbWF0PKY (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:10:24 -0400 To: "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >>>>Cleanup of dev_base list use, with the aim to make device list per-namespace. >>>>In almost every occasion, use of dev_base variable and dev->next pointer >>>>could be easily replaced by for_each_netdev loop. >>>>A few most complicated places were converted to using >>>>first_netdev()/next_netdev(). >>> >>>As a proof of concept patch this is ok. >>>As a real world patch this is much too big, which prevents review. >>>Plus it takes a few actions that are more than replace just >>>iterators through the device list. >> >>Mmm, actually it is a whole changeset and should go as a one patch. I didn't >>find it to be big and my review took only 5-10mins.. >>I also don't think that mailing each driver maintainer is a good idea. >>Only if we want to make some buzz :) > > > Thanks for supporting my case. You reviewed it and missed the obvious typo. > I do agree that a patchset doing it all should happen at once. This doesn't support anything. e.g. I caught quite a lot of bugs after Ingo Molnar, but this doesn't make his code "poor". People are people. Anyway, I would be happy to see the typo. > As for not mailing the maintainers of the code we are changing. That > would just be irresponsible. Kirill