| To: | mk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPV4 IPComp : threshold comparison |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 17 May 2003 22:34:23 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <87smrda4q6.wl@karaba.org> |
| References: | <87smrda4q6.wl@karaba.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Mitsuru KANDA / 神田 充 <mk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 02:00:01 +0900 ===== ipcomp.c 1.6 vs edited ===== --- 1.6/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c Tue May 13 05:58:03 2003 +++ edited/ipcomp.c Sun May 18 01:42:22 2003 I am applying this, but please you USAGI guys start to generate properly rooted patched for me ok? I want something of the form: --- a/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c Tue May 13 05:58:03 2003 +++ b/net/ipv4/ipcomp.c Sun May 18 01:42:22 2003 Almost everyone sends me patches like this, USAGI are the one exception. If everyone sends me patches this way, then all of my patch applying scripts know they can simply use "patch -p1" when sitting at top of kernel tree. Probably all of the USAGI patches look this way because of CVS or something like that. Thank you. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][IPV6] compile fix for net/ipv6/route.c in current bk, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPV4 IPComp : threshold comparison, James Morris |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH][IPV6] compile fix for net/ipv6/route.c in current bk, James Morris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |