In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:36:41 +0100), Gerrit
Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Thank you for your replies and comments, I will be back when the v6 side is
> ready.
Please fix the following as well.
1. Put your code in net/ipv4, probably as udplite.c, and remove n
Quoting David Miller:
| From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:33 +0100
|
| > That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port:
|
| It's not like an ipv6 port is such a big pile of work.
|
I see the point and will port to v6 (have asked colleages for help).
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:33 +0100
> That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port: I can ensure that
> this (IPv4) code is up to standard and to date, but am lacking the
> required additional time to implement the same for IPv6. I am
> trying to contac
Quoting James Morris:
| On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote:
|
| > > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous
| > > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon
| > > as testing permits.
| >
| > Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhe
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote:
> > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous
> > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon
> > as testing permits.
>
> Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry.
> You make it clear that o
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:03:54 +0100
> Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous
> UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon
> as testing permits.
Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry.
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:22:54 +0100
> I am sorry, I don't at the moment have the time to port to v6 with the
> same degree of rigour.
You give the impression that you would just disappear from the face of
the planet should your work actually be integrated
Quoting Alan Cox:
| Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker:
| > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for
| > + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options:
|
| This is not the intended use of the socket API when
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:47:52 +0100), Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker:
> > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for
> > + lightweight, connection-less services. The
Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker:
> + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for
> + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options:
This is not the intended use of the socket API when distinguishing
between services.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:50:33 +0100), Gerrit
Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for
> + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options:
I disagree. It should be SOCK_DGRAM.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:50:33 +0100), Gerrit
Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Attached is an extension which adds RFC3828 - compliant UDP-Lite
> functionality
> to the IPv4 networking stack.
:
> net/core/sock.c |7
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c
12 matches
Mail list logo
