From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:03:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu> References: <20121019194822.GF17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.154930.215119663249874810.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019195557.GG17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160104.115897882147794932.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bcrl@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:33809 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758161Ab2JSUDY (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:03:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121019.160104.115897882147794932.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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) ?