From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F9A62FB99A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 20:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771619286; cv=none; b=Ht8kJv3bVRX4ckfnQtDv/JCAwfckwQvlwbQ9OF0K9COG35Q6JW9WpF/5ntIldXaiKGT8MqWUBWGgcpeCu9rbzvYGycHoe3HSDYkjeFkhTXYehGYEnbaYRWk4x+zH9eG1DJSu16kM98ERouuBAJliy4twy1AWx/cKnCerCjwAjMo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771619286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=w1OoQgJr7uXesrr4Of/AetwFqQpTBamN42u/afVJ12U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=S46wjzZM8qNNFLJDVjfSksOP5ii4omUjvITJXJPlitYjS1UYJtJo0K3i7rA0hqXRNJgGTBW5egOkVj/pwgiRnwVRibYQaHHeOTjz+ZMBrYmLwQvFXmkdi76x9q1lpWG9XeXNihvc76s2kgscaNqlzMo9D6fVWJXDNCa7K0758nk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pp5kac6r; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="pp5kac6r" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD3AFC116C6; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 20:28:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1771619286; bh=w1OoQgJr7uXesrr4Of/AetwFqQpTBamN42u/afVJ12U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pp5kac6r8yJcXfpOGvr0JxWfWlYEocYk42h/W85ofHjdAOuXrhzOsGpnWItIUhm7L qb52k/wV/DXCUyb+L/XNJxk+VgnI9n9WEC7f4rSf622f8sVg1AEM3wZCqySXQxQ+S5 /MmKpbe/32SQf8h+UI2xJfmIGvT3kQ3xolZGDP+oyXK1d8gPQdfZitGSojVu1i03n9 Bup/lMrz0Le1/wAP7I/1prYWP8yKaYcFtWZj5z3ko+FoDq1mNkc0v6U+H8AFuely75 AZJHJS9gUrVsApH0aMlIXVRtu9p4ChdzPIHH0VRLzMnw2WpbG50WJbgp+oOY1pVWaA 73VqNpXKqF9JA== Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:28:04 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Fernando Fernandez Mancera Cc: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, fgont@si6networks.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv6: addrconf: reduce default temp_valid_lft to 2 days Message-ID: <20260220122804.572e70de@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260214172543.5783-1-fmancera@suse.de> <177137761857.765825.5185653389299397165.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:39:27 +0100 Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > > Here is the summary with links: > > - [net,v2] ipv6: addrconf: reduce default temp_valid_lft to 2 days > > https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/9e371b0ba7f5 > > > > FTR; the patch was merged without the fixes tag. I think it would be > good to backport this to stable kernels because otherwise the > documentation and the real configured value are contradicting each other. Yes, because it's a functional change. We can take it in for 7.0 but IMO the justification is too weak to treat it as a stable fix. Imagine this from the perspective of someone who was promised a _stable_ long term support kernel. If this change breaks their expectations - what will be our defense? "But we said in the doc (that nobody reads) that it was supposed to be 2 days"? Dunno. Deciding backports is quite tricky, borderline impossible. I took the executive decision to take the patch ASAP but not to stable. Of course the stable auto-selection process may suck this patch in, anyway. But I won't be culpable :)