From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don???t modify ip_summed; doing so
 treats packets with bad checksums as good.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20160513.142121.1201664846732017162.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <57253527.7010009@candelatech.com>
	<20160501053059.GA26097@1wt.eu>
	<5736076F.10003@candelatech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: w@1wt.eu, vijayp@vijayp.ca, tom@herbertland.com,
	ben@decadent.org.uk, sd@queasysnail.net,
	hannes@stressinduktion.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	cwang@twopensource.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ej@evanjones.ca,
	nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, phil@nwl.cc,
	makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com
To: greearb@candelatech.com
Return-path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <5736076F.10003@candelatech.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:57:19 -0700

> How do you feel about a new socket-option to allow a socket to
> request the old veth behaviour?

I depend upon the opinions of the experts who work upstream on and
maintain these components, since it is an area I am not so familiar
with.

Generally speaking asking me directly for opinions on matters like
this isn't the way to go, in fact I kind of find it irritating.  It
can't all be on me.