netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute/master 0/3] lost mpls ip tunnel patches

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: <20170614102451.42b301bd@xeon-e3>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:24:51 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute/master 0/3] lost mpls ip tunnel patches

On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 18:31:29 -0700
Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> I'm a bit unsure of the decorum in this particular situation. Kernel
> support for mpls/ip tunnels was integrated back in July of 2016.  At the
> time, the author of that feature sent out a RFC patch for the iproute
> support but never followed up on subsequent code review comments.
> 
> The kernel support got merged, but the iproute support never made it in.
> I wanted to run some tests with these features.  In the process, I
> tracked down the author's original patches, merged them into current
> iproute, and attempted to address the comments from code reviewers.
>

In order to get merged, an RFC message should be followed by a final
non RFC version. I think you will find the original's were marked
in patchwork as RFC.