netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: vxlan: do not use vxlan

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]

Date:	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:57:17 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: vxlan: do not use vxlan_net before checking
 event type

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 19:50 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > If you want to do cleanups, whatever, I really don't care.
>> > You had your chance to complain about that when you reviewed
>> > the initial version ... it has nothing to do with the fix.
>>
>> This is not for stable, as long as it doesn't harm the readability
>> we are free to do any cleanup's.
>>
>> If unsure, check Eric's patch for tunnel dst cache.
>>
>> BTW, I am the original author of the patch, you just updated
>> it *trivially* and set yourself as the author. :) I don't mind, but
>> remember that this may be not appropriate for others. At
>> very least I didn't and don't do this myself.
>
>
> Hmm... Daniel mentioned in the changelog you wrote the initial patch,
> and you are credited as the author of the patch, since he kept your
> "Signed-off-by: ..." as the first one.

Author == 'From: ...', you knew it, right?

But WITHOUT even asking for my permission. I am sure this is
not how we usually work. At least, why not ask me before doing
anything? Why not give me a chance to response?

>
> Quite frankly, keeping vxlan_handle_lowerdev_unregister() was the right
> choice.
>
> Stop thinking that a function needs to be used more than once to have
> the right to exist. Splitting code in small parts ease readability and
> code reuse/refactor, this should be obvious to you.
>

When did I say because that it is only used once? Please, stop guessing
my mind.
--
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