lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: IPsec AH use of ahash


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Holler" <holler@ahsoftware.de>
> To: "Tom St Denis" <tstdenis@elliptictech.com>
> Cc: "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>, "Eric Dumazet" <erdnetdev@gmail.com>, "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P"
> <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>, "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, "steffen klassert"
> <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
> "Michal Kubecek" <mkubecek@suse.cz>, "Mike Galbraith" <bitbucket@online.de>
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January, 2013 8:34:20 AM
> Subject: Re: IPsec AH use of ahash
>
> Am 20.01.2013 13:56, schrieb Tom St Denis:
>
> > You should really try running checkpatch.pl over code that's
> > already in the kernel before you call out new contributors on it.
> >
> > How is this supposed to not be adversarial when I can't even use
> > the Kernel source itself as a reference?
>
> In case of the kernel the chicken and egg problem can be answered
> without any questions, most source existed before checkpatch.pl
> (evolved
> to the current state).

We clearly have different interpretations of the word "maintainer" then... If they're not maintaining the code then are they really the maintainers of it?

Point is I copied accepted kernel code and was rejected because of "errors" that are in existing kernel code. Similarly if I did the upgrade to AH to use AEAD I suspect it would be rejected for the same reason.

Tom


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-20 15:21    [W:0.107 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site