From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:33:18 -0600 Message-ID: <507FA2AE.1080509@genband.com> References: <507F38D4.102@genband.com> <20121017.192753.1673804218598802357.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, kaber@trash.net, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.171]:37962 "EHLO exprod7og109.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751981Ab2JRGe1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:34:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121017.192753.1673804218598802357.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/17/2012 05:27 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Chris Friesen > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:01:40 -0600 > >> I sent this to the list yesterday (from another address) but didn't >> get any responses. Accordingly I'm expanding the receiver list to the >> listed maintainers for IPv4/IPv6. > > It can take more than 24 hours to get a response from people who are > volunteers, and who will reply to your report because they want to > rather than because they are obligated. > > Posting it again just irritates such people, and will place your > report at a much lower priority, just FYI. Thanks for the pointers. I was worried that it had gone unnoticed, but I guess the level of traffic on netdev is small enough (compared to something like lkml) that that's generally not an issue. Chris