Dear Jakub and list,
I also have my fair share of concerns about the "if the maintainers
don't ACK it, merge it in case of doubt" approach. What is the point of
having a maintainer in the first place?
I don't really want to imagine the state of a codebase where everything
gets merged by default,
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:27:53 +0100 Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 18/01/2021 18:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > v5 itself was laying around on patchwork for almost a week, marked as
> > "Needs Review/Ack".
>
> When new series show up just hours after review, it's hard to take them
> seriously. It takes
Hi Jakub,
On 18/01/2021 18:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:23:52 +0100 Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 17/01/2021 01:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
to send and recv GTP tunnel p
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:23:52 +0100 Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 17/01/2021 01:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> >> Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
> >> to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
> >> This
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 7:31 AM Harald Welte wrote:
>
> Hi Jonas, Jakub and others,
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:23:52PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> > This patch hasn't received any ACK's from either the maintainers or anyone
> > else providing review. The following issues remain unaddressed aft
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:25 AM Jonas Bonn wrote:
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On 17/01/2021 01:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> >> Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
> >> to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata AP
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:46 AM Jonas Bonn wrote:
>
> Hi Pravin,
>
> Again, this patch is too big and contains too many disparate changes to
> allow for easy review. Please break this up into a series of logical
> changes for easier review.
>
> On 10/01/2021 08:00, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> > Foll
Hi Jonas, Jakub and others,
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:23:52PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> This patch hasn't received any ACK's from either the maintainers or anyone
> else providing review. The following issues remain unaddressed after
> review:
[...]
Full ACK from my point of view. The patch
Hi Pravin,
Again, this patch is too big and contains too many disparate changes to
allow for easy review. Please break this up into a series of logical
changes for easier review.
On 10/01/2021 08:00, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
to send and
Hi Jakub,
On 17/01/2021 01:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
This would allow this device integration with OVS or eBPF using
fl
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
> Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
> to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
> This would allow this device integration with OVS or eBPF using
> flow based tunneling APIs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prav
Hi Harald,
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 11:02 PM Pravin B Shelar wrote:
>
> Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
> to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
> This would allow this device integration with OVS or eBPF using
> flow based tunneling APIs.
>
> Signed-o
Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
This would allow this device integration with OVS or eBPF using
flow based tunneling APIs.
Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar
---
v4-v5:
- coding style changes
v3-v4:
- add check for
13 matches
Mail list logo
