Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v4 3/3] TCPCT part 1c: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

[William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>]

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Are you talking about particular case?!? ...You can safely split into even 
> more parts if there are cleanups which is essential. ...We'll not stop you 
> from doing that nor be angry if do that.
> 
Actually, my earliest posting split the original single patch, and Miller
*did* seem angry.  I had to put it back together again -- and then he
only commented on one thing that *was* in my first post, causing me to
have to redo the entire thing a third time.  So, I've been posting patches
in bigger groups than I originally write and test.


> That kind of response certainly won't help you any. ...First, you said you 
> adapt the current style but for some reason immediately start to say why 
> you would careless about that principle. ...Also, telling that you have 
> lots of experience here and there will not get you there either ;-).
> 
I meant I adapt to existing style (no matter how odd) in places where I'm
patching, so that *patches* are easier to review -- and write in a more
elegant style where I'm making a significant stand-alone addition.

I'd thought that constant-left style was pretty common around here, as grep
tells me there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples in arch, drivers, net,
and sound....

Seems like I'm not alone.


Eric Dumazet wrote:
# Cooking patches to linux is not only matter of good ideas and programming (and Dropping
# patches for the masses).
#
# Its also a matter of convincing _people_ that your additions will be maintainable
# when you leave kernel programming and let people like us correct bugs.
#
# For the moment, I am not convinced at all. I prefer to talk now.
#
OK, I'm talking.  Thank you.

Linux already has a fair amount of my code in it, often hard to recognize
now after 15 years, so I'm pretty sure that my code has been found
maintainable in the past.

Anyway, I don't want to argue about it on an open mailing list.  I'm more
interested in getting work done!


# Note: I did read your TCPCT 25 pages documentation and very am interested by this
# improvement, but its _also_ important to implement it in the normal way.
# (I wish this document could be public in a RFC form)
#
It will be, when we have running code, as I'm loath to publish until I'm
certain it *can* be implemented.

I've something like 40 RFCs published over the years.