Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181006025709.4019-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20181006025709.4019-29-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <20181006235414.GA11773@lunn.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20181006235414.GA11773@lunn.ch>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Sun, 7 Oct 2018 03:57:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHmME9ocMekP+jauihMGKq04to0_jQTjhv=r2wVEcqmLtKJu2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 28/28] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hey Andrew,

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:01 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> The BUG() statements all seemed to be removed. Thanks.
>
> We still have 1 errors, 193 warnings, 7529 lines checked from
> checkpatch. There are still some Macros flow control statements in
> them, despite me pointed them out multiple times.
>
> Im not reviewing this version any further. Until you get the very
> basics right, i doubt this patch is going to make much progress
> towards inclusion.

Dave mentioned he wanted the Zinc stuff to be all set before looking
at this, so I've been focusing my efforts mostly on that. But I
haven't forgotten about your reviews, and seeing as you're actually
interested in looking at this now, I'll be sure to address everything
you've mentioned for v8. When I'm reasonably sure that's all done,
I'll let you know, so that you're not disappointed again.

Jason