From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:11714 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726045AbgC1KeP (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 06:34:15 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02SAWMQK056763 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 06:34:14 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3022jsadf8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 06:34:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 10:34:04 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net] s390/qeth: support net namespaces for L3 devices References: <20200327110042.50797-1-jwi@linux.ibm.com> <20200327.153902.1896503128370913021.davem@davemloft.net> From: Julian Wiedmann Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:34:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200327.153902.1896503128370913021.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Miller Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, ubraun@linux.ibm.com On 27.03.20 23:39, David Miller wrote: > From: Julian Wiedmann > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:00:42 +0100 > >> Enable the L3 driver's IPv4 address notifier to watch for events on qeth >> devices that have been moved into a net namespace. We need to program >> those IPs into the HW just as usual, otherwise inbound traffic won't >> flow. >> >> Fixes: 6133fb1aa137 ("[NETNS]: Disable inetaddr notifiers in namespaces other than initial.") >> Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann > > This looks more like a feature, openning the L3 driver into multiple > namespaces, rather than a critical fix. > Definitely not 'critical', agreed. It's rather silly though that things currently work just fine for IPv6, but not for IPv4. Mind queueing this up for net-next then instead? Thanks.