From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758096Ab0DARCy (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:02:54 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52521 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758576Ab0DARBz (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:01:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:59:00 -0400 From: Andrew Morton To: David Miller Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, henne@nachtwindheim.de, steffen.klassert@secunet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] padata: section cleanup Message-Id: <20100401095900.169b4d00.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100401.001556.24588152.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100331180445.98dbcb55.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100401013845.GA19580@gondor.apana.org.au> <20100331202931.146ef1b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100401.001556.24588152.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:15:56 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:29:31 -0400 > > > Thing is, this isn't net code and it isn't crypto code - it's a > > kernel-wide utility. > > Thanks goodness, because if we had put a private copy in the > networking or the crypto code someone would have given us a hard time. > > Wait a second... we're being given a hard time anyways. :-) Because the target audience for this work weren't informed about it, and it would have been better if they had been. > Kidding aside, why didn't anyone show any interest in the patch when > it was posted to lkml? You can say it was smoothered together with > some crypto stuff, but that was absolutely the logical thing to do > because the follow-on crypto patches showed what the thing was going > to be used for. I dunno - these things happen. The padata patch appears to have been sent once to netdev as an RFC back in 2008 and didn't get any replies there either. Personally I pay less attention to patches which appear in the middle of some discussion because I assume they're for discussion purposes and will come back later. If I'd known this code was coming I would have reviewed it at an appropriate time. Probably others are interested also.