netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Apr 2005 09:16:55 -0400
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050404130224.GA12546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1112403845.1088.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050402012813.GA24575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112406164.1088.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050402014619.GB24861@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112469601.1088.173.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112538718.1096.394.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404005805.GA16543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112614706.1096.439.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404121641.GA12103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112619096.1088.473.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050404130224.GA12546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 09:02, Herbert Xu wrote:

> > -static struct list_head xfrm_km_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(xfrm_km_list);
> > -static DEFINE_RWLOCK(xfrm_km_lock);
> 
> All I wanted was to leave these lines as is so that they didn't
> appear in the patch at all (except as conext) :)
>
> When reviewing patches the most annoying thing is to see things
> moved around or rearranged because that distracts the reviewer
> from the substantiative changes.

Ok, fair enough. It annoys me too when i review patches ;->
So i will fix this before final.

>  
> > ;-> Yes, indeed. I think its time for you to throw in the towel ;->
> 
> Alright I give in :)

Goody - now we can have Masahide run his full test.

cheers,
jamal


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>