[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140527192214.GE25474@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:22:14 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ondřej Bílka <neleai@...nam.cz>,
Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>,
Rémi Denis-Courmont
<remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND]
Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:21:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
> > On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one?
>
> > Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily
> > harder. Also, it means that anyone else who was interested in this
>
> It was meant to highlight the changes with regard to the previous patch,
> i.e. to make things easier for reviewing.
>
> > thread likely got lost at this point, because they probably didn't
> > save the first patch. All of this to say: it makes life much easier
> > if you provide a complete new self-contained patch on each iteration.
>
> If you prefer it that way, find one attached, that I was about to send
> (but you can wait till I use your program to test it ;-) )
Really attached this time ;-\
- Arnaldo
View attachment "recvmmsg-timeout-v2.patch" of type "text/plain" (77758 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists