netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next 0/5] net: introduce generic type and helpers for IP address

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: <1372320510.26333.7.camel@cr0>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:08:30 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 0/5] net: introduce generic type and
 helpers for IP address

On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 09:03 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Hi Amerigo,
> 
> On 06/27/2013 08:43 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > As IPv6 becomes popular, more and more subsystems begin to support IPv6,
> > therefore we need a generic IP address type, in case of duplicates.
> > Also we will also need some helpers to compare, print, check the generic
> > IP address.
> >
> > This patchset introduce a new type union inet_addr as a union of IPv4
> > and IPv6 address, and some helper functions that will be used by existing
> > code and in the future VXLAN module.
> >
> > This patchset only does compile test, since it is still RFC.
> 
> This patch already does that which I've sent yesterday before yours ...
> 
>    [PATCH net-next 1/2] lib: vsprintf: add IPv4/v6 generic %pig/%pIg format specifier
> 
> ... and resend with the set today in the morning as v2 with provided
> feedback applied. Can't you base yours on top of that?

Since your patch is not yet merged, so why not just drop yours (of
course, if no objection for mine)? :)

IOW, even if your patch got merged, then I would probably partially
revert it when I rebase mine on top of yours, which seems ugly, right?

Again, I have no objection to your patch, just I don't want to partially
revert it when I rebase on top of it.

What do you think?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html