Messages in this thread |  | | From | NeilBrown <> | Date | Tue, 03 Apr 2018 12:23:40 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] rhashtable_walk fixes |
| |
On Fri, Mar 30 2018, David Miller wrote:
> From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> > 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 nominate.
Thanks, NeilBrown [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |