From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom St Denis Subject: Re: IPsec AH use of ahash Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:54:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <650108746.93086.1358690064783.JavaMail.root@elliptictech.com> References: <50FBF25C.4030604@ahsoftware.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Borislav Petkov , Eric Dumazet , "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" , David Miller , steffen klassert , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek , Mike Galbraith To: Alexander Holler Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50FBF25C.4030604@ahsoftware.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexander Holler" > To: "Tom St Denis" > Cc: "Borislav Petkov" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" > , "David Miller" , "steffen klassert" > , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, > "Michal Kubecek" , "Mike Galbraith" > Sent: Sunday, 20 January, 2013 8:34:20 AM > Subject: Re: IPsec AH use of ahash > > Am 20.01.2013 13:56, schrieb Tom St Denis: > > > You should really try running checkpatch.pl over code that's > > already in the kernel before you call out new contributors on it. > > > > How is this supposed to not be adversarial when I can't even use > > the Kernel source itself as a reference? > > In case of the kernel the chicken and egg problem can be answered > without any questions, most source existed before checkpatch.pl > (evolved > to the current state). We clearly have different interpretations of the word "maintainer" then... If they're not maintaining the code then are they really the maintainers of it? Point is I copied accepted kernel code and was rejected because of "errors" that are in existing kernel code. Similarly if I did the upgrade to AH to use AEAD I suspect it would be rejected for the same reason. Tom