From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: vxlan: do not use vxlan_net before checking event type Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:47:49 +0100 Message-ID: <52DADA65.3030508@redhat.com> References: <1389959706-30976-1-git-send-email-dborkman@redhat.com> <52D97746.1040408@redhat.com> <1390065511.31367.535.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , "Eric W. Biederman" , Jesse Brandeburg To: Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10803 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751347AbaARTr5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:47:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/18/2014 06:57 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 19:50 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>>> >>>> If you want to do cleanups, whatever, I really don't care. >>>> You had your chance to complain about that when you reviewed >>>> the initial version ... it has nothing to do with the fix. >>> >>> This is not for stable, as long as it doesn't harm the readability >>> we are free to do any cleanup's. >>> >>> If unsure, check Eric's patch for tunnel dst cache. >>> >>> BTW, I am the original author of the patch, you just updated >>> it *trivially* and set yourself as the author. :) I don't mind, but >>> remember that this may be not appropriate for others. At >>> very least I didn't and don't do this myself. >> >> Hmm... Daniel mentioned in the changelog you wrote the initial patch, >> and you are credited as the author of the patch, since he kept your >> "Signed-off-by: ..." as the first one. > > Author == 'From: ...', you knew it, right? > > But WITHOUT even asking for my permission. I am sure this is > not how we usually work. At least, why not ask me before doing > anything? Why not give me a chance to response? > >> Quite frankly, keeping vxlan_handle_lowerdev_unregister() was the right >> choice. >> >> Stop thinking that a function needs to be used more than once to have >> the right to exist. Splitting code in small parts ease readability and >> code reuse/refactor, this should be obvious to you. > > When did I say because that it is only used once? Please, stop guessing > my mind. Cong, I'm really tired of discussing this BS with you, and this is my last mail on this topic. You said "There is no need to keep vxlan_handle_lowerdev_unregister(), it is too short." I, however, think keeping vxlan_handle_lowerdev_unregister() is the right choice as it makes the code more readable, plus you clearly agreed with the code earlier as you've given your Reviewed-by tag. You even got your Fixes tag wrong and I do care that an actual fix for a bug has a bit more in-depth commit message telling what's going on. I think the message in the commit is equally important as the code itself, you should know. Maybe, I was just in the wrong timezone, but while waiting for a v2 and not having endless discussions about vxlan_handle_lowerdev_unregister(), I do care that this gets fixed asap! Clearly, it seems it was an honest mistake to do so.