From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -stable] Re: rib_trie / Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:44:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20090708064448.GA3148@ami.dom.local> References: <20090702060011.GB4954@ff.dom.local> <4A4FF34E.7080001@itcare.pl> <20090705130828.GB3094@ami.dom.local> <20090707.194208.76202299.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: pstaszewski@itcare.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, robert@robur.slu.se, jorge@dti2.net To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com ([209.85.218.225]:46521 "EHLO mail-bw0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758630AbZGHGp0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:45:26 -0400 Received: by bwz25 with SMTP id 25so2573045bwz.37 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090707.194208.76202299.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 07:42:08PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarek Poplawski > Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:08:28 +0200 > > > This new patch below is intended only for -stable (and later for > > net-next), because it doesn't meet rules of the current -rc. Anyway, > > it's not critical (but it actually fixes a regression from 2.6.22). > > I think if we' re going to toss this into -stable, we should > put it into net-2.6 too, and that's what I'm going to do. It's your decision: I don't think this patch is worth any arguing about (de)stabilizing. Btw., since -stable rules are less strict it seems natural such patches with bug fixes should rather go net-next -> -stable way, unless I miss something? Thanks, Jarek P.