Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:54:24 -0500 (EST) | From | Tom St Denis <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |