On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 08:13 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:34 AM, David Dillow <d...@thedillows.org> wrote: > > I agree that we should add support for SRP_CRED_REQ, but I'm not > > thrilled with the mix of changes in the patch, as well as the general > > aesthetics of the result. How about something like the following series > > -- posted as a follow up to this message -- with proper credit for Bart? > > I'll sign off on them once we're happy with a direction and Bart acks. > > > > Also, these are all compile tested only, so they need some testing. I > > don't have anything that uses these messages, so some help would be > > appreciated. > > Is that regular kernel coding practice, to run away with the work > someone else did and to claim authorship ? As far as I know this is > considered as impolite.
At no time did I claim authorship. If you re-read what I wrote, I explicitly listed proper credit to you as an outstanding issue. I didn't like the way the code looked after your patch, and the three separate changes mashed up into one patch. So I took time out of my afternoon to break them up to better fit my interpretation of kernel coding practice. I don't really care who's name they go in under. Do you have any technical comments? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
