[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Billing 1: WAS (Re: [PATCH 2/4] deferred drop, __parent workaround,

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Billing 1: WAS (Re: [PATCH 2/4] deferred drop, __parent workaround, reshape_fail , netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx ,
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:38:42 +0200
Cc: sandr8 <sandr8_NOSPAM_@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, devik@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1093187835.1042.95.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, sandr8 <sandr8_NOSPAM_@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, devik@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <411C0FCE.9060906@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1092401484.1043.30.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040816072032.GH15418@sunbeam2> <1092661235.2874.71.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4120D068.2040608@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1092743526.1038.47.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41220AEA.20409@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1093187835.1042.95.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:17:15AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> Apologies for latency - was busy at (my real) work.

Same for me, sorry.

> Let me say this:
> I am happy with Haralds billing patch which is already in as is.
> In other words, although there is an accounting discrepancy it is not
> that big.
> What does that mean? unbilling is not something to rush in and patch in
> if its going to have an impact on other pieces. It doesnt matter whether
> it goes in in 2.6.20 or doesnt even go in as far as i am concerned. 

Same to me, although I wold have used a less explicit wording ;)

> cheers,
> jamal

- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>   
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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