Hi Tom,
sorry for the delayed response. But I remain committed in pushing
the non-controversial part of your GTP patches forward.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 06:47:59PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> Thanks. As indicated, I'm planning some testing later this weekend on
> the non-IPv6 patches, and am happy to add my Acked-by and/or re-submit
> those to Dave after that.
After some more delays and returning from netdev 2.2, I've finally put
together a testing setup and successfully (manually) tested with the
following patches:
01/13 vxlan: Move gro_cells_init to ndo_init
02/13 iptunnel: Add common functions to get a tunnel route
04/13 gtp: Call common functions to get tunnel routes and add dst_cache
05/13 iptunnel: Generalize tunnel update pmtu
06/13 gtp: Change to use gro_cells
07/13 gtp: Use goto for exceptions in gtp_udp_encap_recv funcs
08/13 gtp: udp recv clean up
09/13 gtp: Call function to update path mtu
10/13 gtp: Eliminate pktinfo and add port configuration
I hereby acknowledge those patches. How should we proceed? Should I
a) do nothing, you will add Acked-By and re-submit?
b) send an individual Acked-By in a reply to each related patch here on
netdev and you will re-submit those patches?
c) simply create a rebased set from those patches and
re-submit them to the list for net-next myself, with the Acked-by?
d) be preposterous and provide a gtp git tree for DaveM to pull from?
As discussed before, I will not merge/ack IPv6 will until we have an
implementation that is interoperable. I have a TODO list of other
bugfixes and improvements for Kernel GTP, but I'm hopeful that IPv6 can
still be addressed before the end of 2017.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
