From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A9tefan_Gula?= Subject: Re: [patch v7, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet multipoint GRE over IP Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4168018.821328016111235.JavaMail.root@5-MeO-DMT.ynet.sk> <20120131.115005.1292336126288944173.davem@davemloft.net> <20120131.190830.1189531706541596294.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120131.190830.1189531706541596294.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 2012/2/1 David Miller : > From: =C5=A0tefan Gula > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:32:04 +0100 > > > You don't understand. > > If your code is superfluous in the end, we shouldn't add it in > the first place. > > But if I do relent and let your code in now, we have to live > with it, and it's associated maintainence costs, FOREVER. > > That's why I'm forcing this to be implemented properly from the start= , > so we don't end up with two pieces of code that provide essentially > the same functionality. I understand your strategic point of maintenance here and partially agree with it. And if I understand it correctly, it is to one day have openvswitch as full replacement of linux bridge code. On the other hand gretap interface already exists in kernel so that part of the code is currently also superfluous - what's the plan with that particular piece of code?. So if this is now only about the maintenance of my code, I'll be more than happy to continue maintaining it myself together with you guys. And if it comes in the future to decision to remove whole gretap code (not just my part) and replace it with something else that will provide the same or even more functionality, I have absolutely no problem with that.