Hi Guillaume, Please see inline:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Guillaume Nault <g.na...@alphalink.fr> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:14:37PM -0700, R. Parameswaran wrote: >> >> The MTU overhead calculation in L2TP device set-up >> merged via commit b784e7ebfce8cfb16c6f95e14e8532d0768ab7ff >> needs to be adjusted to lock the tunnel socket while >> referencing the sub-data structures to derive the >> socket's IP overhead. > > Thanks. > > Tested-by: Guillaume Nault <g.na...@alphalink.fr> > > BTW, you don't need to add "v1" for the first version of a patch. > There's also no need for numbering pathes when there's only one in the > series. And we normally prefix the commit message with "<subsystem>: ". > For this patch, your subject would look like " [PATCH net-next] l2tp: ...". > > Also, you could have added a "Reported-by:" tag (I don't really mind > in this case, but that's good practice). Thanks for correcting these (and for testing the changes) and sorry for the Reported-by omission. I'll respin by tonight with these, per reply to Dave. regards, Ramkumar