On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:59:44PM +0000, James Chapman wrote: > I just realised the peer_offset attribute changes are already applied in > net-next. (I missed these when they were submitted just before Christmas.) > Should these commits be reverted? We probably don't want v4.15 to get an > additional l2tp peer_offset attribute if we are going to remove it and the > rest of the code supporting configurable offset attributes in the next > release. > Yes, I agree for a revert. I'm sorry for Lorenzo's work but I'd rather not expand the user API in this direction.
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer_offs... Guillaume Nault
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add peer_... James Chapman
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add ... Lorenzo Bianconi
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... Guillaume Nault
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... Lorenzo Bianconi
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... James Chapman
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... Guillaume Nault
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... Lorenzo Bianconi
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... James Chapman
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... James Chapman
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... Guillaume Nault
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: add ... Guillaume Nault
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] l2tp: ... James Chapman
- Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] l2tp: fix offset/peer_offset con... David Miller