Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket needs a lock

[R Parameswaran]

Hi Guillaume,

Please see inline:

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Guillaume Nault  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 
>
> 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 ": ".
> 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

Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket needs a lock

[R Parameswaran]

Hi Dave,

Please see inline:

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:13 AM, David Miller  wrote:
> From: "R. Parameswaran" 
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> This is missing a proper signoff.
>
> The subject line also needs to be fixed "[PATCH net-next] l2tp: " as explained
> by Guillaume.
>

Thanks, I will re-spin with these corrections by tonight PT.

regards,

Ramkumar
> Thanks.

Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket needs a lock

[David Miller]

From: "R. Parameswaran" 
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:14:37 -0700 (PDT)

> 
> 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.

This is missing a proper signoff.

The subject line also needs to be fixed "[PATCH net-next] l2tp: " as explained
by Guillaume.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket needs a lock

[Guillaume Nault]

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 

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 ": ".
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).