netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 28/28] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

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: <20181007164807.GA21302@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:48:07 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 28/28] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 03:57:38AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey Andrew,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:01 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > The BUG() statements all seemed to be removed. Thanks.
> >
> > We still have 1 errors, 193 warnings, 7529 lines checked from
> > checkpatch. There are still some Macros flow control statements in
> > them, despite me pointed them out multiple times.
> >
> > Im not reviewing this version any further. Until you get the very
> > basics right, i doubt this patch is going to make much progress
> > towards inclusion.
> 
> Dave mentioned he wanted the Zinc stuff to be all set before looking
> at this, so I've been focusing my efforts mostly on that. But I
> haven't forgotten about your reviews, and seeing as you're actually
> interested in looking at this now, I'll be sure to address everything
> you've mentioned for v8. When I'm reasonably sure that's all done,
> I'll let you know, so that you're not disappointed again.

Hi Jason

This is the sort of thing you should state in the patchset version
history. It is O.K. to say i will address this later, but you need to
communicate that. Otherwise reviewers just get frustrated that
comments are getting repeatedly ignored and why should they bother
reviewing it. And without reviewers willing to review your code, it
will never get into mainline.