From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CFAC00140 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 20:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234847AbiHBUeq (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:34:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39110 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233941AbiHBUep (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:34:45 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39BE25C63 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:34:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1659472483; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+is0TupoIsdZMelWtLOo82/kcSJ6OcRXnRToRi8pzwg=; b=ce18Judym/sMAmLeS47IyO8Fs4C/L948MM21ALKSdI2sl6xqtmRCZxYr6mD7d9oD/Iqd0T gytfzjFHZ0PIpf3PycRhr6QCDDoz4wtmOAJXlhu74EOR2/1OSD2zbgqVZg8rTEMiCDAF5z e6tq++ZBSHA9DosmbilH6WY8VBuyLd0= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-198-KUB_ALVGO1unkNtLlw8xTA-1; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 16:34:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: KUB_ALVGO1unkNtLlw8xTA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id c189-20020a1c35c6000000b003a4bfb16d86so3349209wma.3 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+is0TupoIsdZMelWtLOo82/kcSJ6OcRXnRToRi8pzwg=; b=Z9X/RIJyf/Q8nuWzcIjFiGgtrymhvdCMfyWhu8vbrXITYA8vviZuCvxbKJpvFORaay gOkLQKy//tT2wHZMWQodOvLPxdr7teH7+rzaGf+7u/kcvf2YzSiLIXMz0VoMSzEyR1lo 9VhadE+Me0FjS1x/17VPqbluaF20FXbt9TYgXQEWkQQnJM4+C+rpSewCU3SfKCkEThbZ yvr+abOTvwcXWfs6ZJR925boeq6/5BRuYXAjTFbMmSH1RivcbyIusRq6I/N8DWkiJVKj t+dbUwm5FU1SquzWgCTJkZBGhK2+RiXPChm1QBnq3fw+nZtEuY2KdW0gGjSlO0spxarT KMIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0XKk0emaG0Gs+x6Q3gTv5IUMhAUZOqkLotLd3X/ALwYwzvybQn GKTz+vprNS5+RxC9PHgmItFQ6QZBLns+CVTmmPWG42b3HPWfLrWV1qpigo/7wnRi/ZxBUMS/DK/ MmAbrfpTtuX689tw3 X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1993:b0:3a4:c0a9:5b6f with SMTP id t19-20020a05600c199300b003a4c0a95b6fmr695367wmq.79.1659472481371; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6gPZQZzCD5Xe6IP/pYbsHjMKe/890WXGHfv+GHbZQSidClSqCbGQ3SbuszEkRSUyzF5pyZww== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1993:b0:3a4:c0a9:5b6f with SMTP id t19-20020a05600c199300b003a4c0a95b6fmr695357wmq.79.1659472481064; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gerbillo.redhat.com (146-241-118-222.dyn.eolo.it. [146.241.118.222]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k33-20020a05600c1ca100b003a4ef39b8f3sm3011026wms.18.2022.08.02.13.34.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 13:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4cfaacec31ef5f7c7567d5e40d07bd0af9ba99a7.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 1/4] net: bonding: replace dev_trans_start() with the jiffies of the last ARP/NS From: Paolo Abeni To: Jay Vosburgh , Jakub Kicinski Cc: Vladimir Oltean , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Lunn , Vivien Didelot , Florian Fainelli , Jonathan Toppins , Veaceslav Falico , Andy Gospodarek , Hangbin Liu , Jamal Hadi Salim , Cong Wang , Jiri Pirko , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Stephen Hemminger Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:34:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <23020.1659471874@famine> References: <20220731124108.2810233-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <20220731124108.2810233-2-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <1547.1659293635@famine> <20220731191327.cey4ziiez5tvcxpy@skbuf> <5679.1659402295@famine> <20220802014553.rtyzpkdvwnqje44l@skbuf> <20220802091110.036d40dd@kernel.org> <20220802163027.z4hjr5en2vcjaek5@skbuf> <16274.1659463241@famine> <20220802121029.13b9020b@kernel.org> <23020.1659471874@famine> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.fc35) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 13:24 -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 11:00:41 -0700 Jay Vosburgh wrote: > > > > > Alternatively, would it be more comfortable to just put this > > > > > patch (1/4) to stable and not backport the others? > > > > > > > > The above works for me - I thought it was not ok for Jay, but since he > > > > is proposing such sulution, I guess I was wrong. > > > > > > My original reluctance was that I hadn't had an opportunity to > > > sufficiently review the patch set to think through the potential > > > regressions. There might be something I haven't thought of, but I think > > > would only manifest in very unusual configurations. > > > > > > I'm ok with applying the series to net-next when it's available, > > > and backporting 1/4 for stable (and 4/4 with it, since that's the > > > documentation update). > > > > > > Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh > > > > One more time, sorry :) If I'm reading things right Vladimir and > > I would like this to be part of 5.20, Paolo is okay with that, > > Jay would prefer to delay it until 5.21. > > > > Is that right? > > I'm sure there's an Abbott & Costello joke in here somewhere, At least not intentionally, not on my side! :) > but I thought Paolo preferred net-next, and I said I was ok with that. I initially suggested net-next, but then I agreed for a minimal fix for net. > > My preference for 5.20 is because we do have active users reporting > > problems in stable, and by moving to 5.21 we're delaying things by > > 2 weeks. At the same time, 5.20 vs 5.21 doesn't matter as we intend > > to hit stable users with these change before either of those is out. > > I have no objection to 5.20 if you & Paolo don't object. I also don't have objection for 5.20 (6.0) > For stable, I believe that 1/4 (and 4/4 for docs) is the minimum > set to resolve the functional issues; is the plan to send all 4 patches > to stable, or just 1 and 4? I think that for stable 1 && 4 only would be the better option. Cheers, Paolo