From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:20:49 -0700
David S. Miller wrote:
> I don't think I'll be applying this:
>
> 1) No tcp ipv6 bits
I know squat about this, so am reluctant to hack code there.
It's hash lookup code, nearly identical to ipv4 version except
it's dealing with 128-bit IP addresses instead of 32-bit.
You give up way too easily, which leads me to belive you'll disappear
just as easily if complicated bugs stop popping up as a result of your
changes.
This is one of the most important issues I consider when I get a
delicate patch to the networking for someone, how fast they throw
their arms up in the air.
For example, someone like Arnaldo, when he sends me a patch and the
whole kernel explodes as a result I know he'll stick around for
however long it takes to fix the problems and he won't go "ipv6 looks
too complicated" when I ask him to submit a complete version of his
changes.
You patch should not be a maintainence burden to me. Your attitude
tells me it is going to become one.
See http://www.candelatech.com/sts2_hack.patch (32-bit only), it contains
the missing
bits, I'm not good at generating two patch sets (ie pktgen and send-to-self)
when they touch the same file...
Don't include stuff in the patch that doesn't belong there, this isn't
so difficult.
The #ifdefs were per request, I personally would like them not to be there
either. As far as I can tell, the changes are backwards compatible, so there
should be no need for ifdefs.
I mean put the ifdefs in a header file such as tcp.h, not in the *.c
code.
Thanks for looking at them. I can fix the #ifdef cruft, but adding 64bit
support or hacking ipv6 is beyond my means of testing at this point, so
I cannot make those changes.
I don't require you to test the ipv6 portions, I will be able to
eyeball them and know if they are right or not, this is how simple
the ipv6 version of the tcp bits will be.
|