From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:03:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20121019210333.GI8315@kvack.org> References: <20121019195557.GG17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160104.115897882147794932.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160711.1159467896676133280.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019201430.GI17417@1wt.eu> <20121019202244.GH8315@kvack.org> <20121019205300.GJ17417@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , stable@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:44836 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753526Ab2JSVDe (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:03:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121019205300.GJ17417@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:53:00PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > I see. Then users will have the same issue when upgrading from 2.6.32 to 3.0. > > OK let's bisect the situation : > - current 2.6.32 users are facing a routing bug that needs be fixed. > > - 2.6.34 and onwards do not have this bug but are probably affected by > lower performance due to the minimal fix. Argh, sorry (too many patches in flight), it looks like just cherry picking d11a4dc18bf41719c9f0d7ed494d295dd2973b92 is okay. It does have the rt_is_expired() changes, so it should not have much of a performance regression. So going with only this change is probably the way to go for now. -ben