[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] rhashtable_walk fixes
On Fri, Mar 30 2018, David Miller wrote:

> From: NeilBrown <>
> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:19:09 +1100
>> These two patches apply on top of my previous "rhashtable: reset iter
>> when rhashtable_walk_start sees new table" patch.
>> The first fixes a bug that I found in rhltable_insert().
>> The second is an alternate to my "rhashtable: allow a walk of the hash
>> table without missing object."
>> This version doesn't require an API change and should be reliable for
>> rhltables too (my first version didn't handle these correctly).
> Neil, please don't mix and match patches.
> Also when you need to change a patch in a series, please post the entire
> new series not just the patch that changes.
> Patch #1 in this series is unnecessary. As Herbert explained this has
> been fixed already.
> So please repost freshly the patches that are relevant and you want me
> to consider for inclusion. Also be explicit and clear about which of
> my two networking trees you are targetting these changes.

Hi Dave,
I'm sorry if I've caused some confusion, but I didn't think that I was
submitting patches to you and know nothing about your two trees.
I was submitting patches to Thomas and Herbert, the registered
maintainers of rhashtable. I assumed they would review, respond, and
take responsibility for getting them upstream, if that's what they
decided, based on whatever arrangements they have in place.

If it is appropriate I can resend all of my patches that receive an
Ack as a coherent series, and send this to you nominating a particular
tree, but I'm unlikely to do that unless asked and told which tree to

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-03 04:24    [W:0.043 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site