From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20121019.160711.1159467896676133280.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20121019195557.GG17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160104.115897882147794932.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bcrl@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: w@1wt.eu Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:38331 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754882Ab2JSUHN (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:07:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Willy Tarreau Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:03:18 +0200 > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:01:04PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Willy Tarreau >> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:55:57 +0200 >> >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:49:30PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> >> >> >> How about checking if these changes are already in 3.0/3.2/etc. or not >> >> before asking such questions? >> > >> > Because I didn't find the patches in 3.0 and Ben said he backported them >> > from 3.6, I think these are two valid reasons to ask, no ? >> >> Well, the thing is, I personally don't consider them appropriate for >> 3.x.y -stable backports, and that's why I haven't submitted them. > > OK. Is is because the issue is less important there or because the fix are > more risky than the issues they fix (or any other reason) ? I have a different opinion about the risk/benefit ratio than Ben does. I do not think these cases are important enough to enough people to justify -stable inclusion at all.