Re: [PATCH 0/2] rhashtable_walk fixes

[NeilBrown]

On Fri, Mar 30 2018, David Miller wrote:

> From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:19:09 +1100
>
>> These two patches apply on top of my previous "rhashtable: reset iter
>> when rhashtable_walk_start sees new table" patch.
>> 
>> The first fixes a bug that I found in rhltable_insert().
>> 
>> The second is an alternate to my "rhashtable: allow a walk of the hash
>> table without missing object."
>> This version doesn't require an API change and should be reliable for
>> rhltables too (my first version didn't handle these correctly).
>
> Neil, please don't mix and match patches.
>
> Also when you need to change a patch in a series, please post the entire
> new series not just the patch that changes.
>
> Patch #1 in this series is unnecessary.  As Herbert explained this has
> been fixed already.
>
> So please repost freshly the patches that are relevant and you want me
> to consider for inclusion.  Also be explicit and clear about which of
> my two networking trees you are targetting these changes.

Hi Dave,
 I'm sorry if I've caused some confusion, but I didn't think that I was
 submitting patches to you and know nothing about your two trees.
 I was submitting patches to Thomas and Herbert, the registered
 maintainers of rhashtable.  I assumed they would review, respond, and
 take responsibility for getting them upstream, if that's what they
 decided, based on whatever arrangements they have in place.

 If it is appropriate I can resend all of my patches that receive an
 Ack as a coherent series, and send this to you nominating a particular
 tree, but I'm unlikely to do that unless asked and told which tree to
 nominate.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature