netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] gtp: fixes and support multiple VRF's per GTP socket

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170124.114655.1282086171761676213.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:46:55 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     laforge@...filter.org
Cc:     aschultz@...p.net, pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Lionel.Gauthier@...ecom.fr, openbsc@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] gtp: fixes and support multiple VRF's per GTP
 socket

From: Harald Welte <laforge@...filter.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:39:19 +0100

> Hi Andreas,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
>> During that work some smaller problems where found and fixes for them are
>> included.
> 
> As this is a rather large patch-set, and I think it might be better to
> split it in clear bugfixes of the existing code (or no-brainers like the
> module alias) and in introducing new featur regarding socket/netdev.
> However, that's just my comment "from the side", I'm not the one who
> needs to be convinced in terms of merging them :)
> 
> I would just assume that the clear fixes + no-brainers could go in right
> away without any further review...

Yes, please split this stuff up, the patch series is _way_ too large.

Anything more than a dozen patches is way too much to burdon reviewers
with at one time.