netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.22 1/3] [TCP]: Sed magic converts func(sk, tp, ...) -> func(sk, ...)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704171033590.20010@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:47 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	kaber@...sh.net, hch@...radead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.22 1/3] [TCP]: Sed magic converts func(sk, tp,
 ...) -> func(sk, ...)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:19:02 +0300 (EEST)
> 
> > [PATCH] [TCP]: Sed magic converts func(sk, tp, ...) -> func(sk, ...)
> 
> I was trying to spread out the net-2.6.22 tree from the tcp-2.6
> one so that we could do the experimental TCP stuff in the tcp-2.6
> tree and leave other networking changes for net-2.6.22
> 
> Putting in TCP cleanups which touch a lot of code into net-2.6.22
> defeats that effort because now there will be all kinds of rejects and
> merge errors people will have to deal with if they clone a net-2.6.22
> tree then pull in tcp-2.6 to do some TCP hacking which is valid.
> 
> I suppose we can live with that, and just tell people to just pull
> tcp-2.6 into a fresh linux-2.6 tree straight, but it's going to make
> rebasing difficult for me as well.
>
> net-2.6.22 is already approaching 350 patches, it's a monster and
> the merge conflicts and rebasing pain are really getting hard to
> deal with.

I fully understand your concerns (I had already though that you might 
rather want to put this kind of thing to tcp-2.6)... It will be almost 
trivial to base it to tcp-2.6 because it's, well, (mostly) automated.
I'll try to get that done today so you'll have less worries... :-)


-- 
 i.