[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170412075355.mjgaerruslswcjmw@alphalink.fr>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:53:55 +0200
From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kleptog@...na.org, jchapman@...alix.com,
davem@...hat.com, nprachan@...cade.com, rshearma@...cade.com,
stephen@...workplumber.org, sdietric@...cade.com,
ciwillia@...cade.com, lboccass@...cade.com, dfawcus@...cade.com,
bhong@...cade.com, jblunck@...cade.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket
needs a lock
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:14:37PM -0700, R. Parameswaran wrote:
>
> The MTU overhead calculation in L2TP device set-up
> merged via commit b784e7ebfce8cfb16c6f95e14e8532d0768ab7ff
> needs to be adjusted to lock the tunnel socket while
> referencing the sub-data structures to derive the
> socket's IP overhead.
Thanks.
Tested-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
BTW, you don't need to add "v1" for the first version of a patch.
There's also no need for numbering pathes when there's only one in the
series. And we normally prefix the commit message with "<subsystem>: ".
For this patch, your subject would look like " [PATCH net-next] l2tp: ...".
Also, you could have added a "Reported-by:" tag (I don't really mind
in this case, but that's good practice).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists