Folks,
please allow a few general comments to avoid further misunderstandings and
complications.
Several of you are more from a research background than from a developer
background. The diversity
on this list often creates communication differences which have a paralysing
effect on progress:
* often a patch submission breaks out into a discussion thread which continues
for weeks and
months, while the the patch meanwhile "brews" unchanged somewhere;
* often parties defend their arguments from a wide range of diverse
perspectives:
o the draft/specification perspective;
o one's own research agenda;
o network safety;
o operational stability of the implementation.
Within one's scope one is of course right, but the perspectives are not all
compatible.
* One can only one thing at a time: research discussions or fixing
implementation problems.
There is only one time budget for both activities.
In short:
=========
* My patches are all well-documented, are in chunks of a single logical change
per patch, and I do
much to make the patch reviewing as straightforward as possible. I don't
know if you will get that
on other lists; in any case what I am asking for in return is that these
patches are dealt with
fairly and with reference directly to the code, and less global research
questions.
* While I try my best to cooperate information-wise, I simply don't have the
time to participate
in long discussion threads (especially when triggered by just a few lines of
code). If there is
group-wise agreement, I'll be happy to update the patch set if a majority of
people support an
update they have agreed on, but I would like to limit discussion to the code
content of patches.
* I will accept / fix / and track down every single technical implementation
issue which someone
points out to me in a patch. I am not insisting on accepting second-class
material, but I want
a fair review for the material which has indeed cost hard work.
To illustrate what I mean, here are the last patch statistics (since March):
Documentation/networking/dccp.txt | 22 19 3 0
include/linux/dccp.h | 67 42 25 0 +-
net/dccp/ackvec.c | 4 2 2 0
net/dccp/ccids/Kconfig | 12 8 4 0
net/dccp/ccids/ccid2.c | 2 1 1 0
net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c | 867 322 545 0
+++++++++++++-----------------------
net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.h | 83 44 39 0 +--
net/dccp/ccids/lib/Makefile | 3 2 1 0
net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.c | 238 140 98 0 +++++----
net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.h | 74 46 28 0 +--
net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history.c | 455 327 128 0 +++++++++++++-----
net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history.h | 210 116 94 0 ++++----
net/dccp/ccids/lib/tfrc.h | 30 26 4 0 +
net/dccp/ccids/lib/tfrc_module.c | 44 44 0 0 +
net/dccp/dccp.h | 33 27 6 0 +
net/dccp/input.c | 129 81 48 0 +++--
net/dccp/minisocks.c | 1 0 1 0
net/dccp/options.c | 62 30 32 0 +-
net/dccp/output.c | 75 50 25 0 ++-
net/dccp/proto.c | 176 119 57 0 ++++---
net/dccp/sysctl.c | 10 10 0 0
21 files changed, 1456 insertions(+), 1141 deletions(-)
There are almost as many deletions as insertions (in CCID3 the factor is close
to 2).
Which means that this work is conservative, mostly dumb, clerical review-type.
I am not complaining, but such work - fishing out all the bugs - is required
to obtain a useable stack.
I last discovered this when writing a simple socket application - that bombed
out, which lead to the
patches on closing/termination state; which in turn lead to the patches
regarding the Sync-floods.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
