Re: IPsec AH use of ahash

[Tom St Denis]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Holler" <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Tom St Denis" <tstdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Borislav Petkov" <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Dumazet" <erdnetdev@xxxxxxxxx>, "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P"
> <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@xxxxxxxxx>, "David Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "steffen klassert"
> <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> "Michal Kubecek" <mkubecek@xxxxxxx>, "Mike Galbraith" <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January, 2013 8:34:20 AM
> Subject: Re: IPsec AH use of ahash
> 
> Am 20.01.2013 13:56, schrieb Tom St Denis:
> 
> > You should really try running checkpatch.pl over code that's
> > already in the kernel before you call out new contributors on it.
> >
> > How is this supposed to not be adversarial when I can't even use
> > the Kernel source itself as a reference?
> 
> In case of the kernel the chicken and egg problem can be answered
> without any questions, most source existed before checkpatch.pl
> (evolved
> to the current state).

We clearly have different interpretations of the word "maintainer" then...  If they're not maintaining the code then are they really the maintainers of it?

Point is I copied accepted kernel code and was rejected because of "errors" that are in existing kernel code.  Similarly if I did the upgrade to AH to use AEAD I suspect it would be rejected for the same reason.

Tom
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/