From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] sctp: add support for generating stream reconf chunks Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:04:24 -0200 Message-ID: <20170109190424.GE3781@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170109124325.GB20973@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20170109.105301.469495957021068521.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Neil Horman , network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34378 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758119AbdAITE2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:04:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:27:09AM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:53 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Neil Horman > > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:43:25 -0500 > > > >> These all look reasonably good, but it seems before we accept them, > >> there should be an additional patch that actually makes use of the code. > >> I presume that is forthcomming? > > > > This all comes from my asking that the original huge set of patches be > > split up. > > > > People always just rush this kind of work and never think about laying > > out the resubmission properly. > > > > One should always only submit new interfaces along with an actual use > > because only with a use can we properly review whether the new > > interface is good or not. > > I was trying to keep the same order with rfc, but it seems not a good > idea, will resplit, thanks. Not sure how much it can help but one idea it to split it into requester and requested sides. Do the first patches/patchsets to make Linux able to accept/handle requests, and then to issue requests. Marcelo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:04:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] sctp: add support for generating stream reconf chunks Message-Id: <20170109190424.GE3781@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: References: <20170109124325.GB20973@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20170109.105301.469495957021068521.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Xin Long Cc: David Miller , Neil Horman , network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:27:09AM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:53 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Neil Horman > > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:43:25 -0500 > > > >> These all look reasonably good, but it seems before we accept them, > >> there should be an additional patch that actually makes use of the code. > >> I presume that is forthcomming? > > > > This all comes from my asking that the original huge set of patches be > > split up. > > > > People always just rush this kind of work and never think about laying > > out the resubmission properly. > > > > One should always only submit new interfaces along with an actual use > > because only with a use can we properly review whether the new > > interface is good or not. > > I was trying to keep the same order with rfc, but it seems not a good > idea, will resplit, thanks. Not sure how much it can help but one idea it to split it into requester and requested sides. Do the first patches/patchsets to make Linux able to accept/handle requests, and then to issue requests. Marcelo