From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (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 9A77D2727F3 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 10:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770026495; cv=none; b=Pxx1DoimTH9XUc/flfIDvMTkqEpYpeGhThBWgFrjf6EQkIypXeXRryN0NBA4m7+wTQZHMyDmhZbK3chtpWfeHp22JySkFobo24iF3a8Fr1Mac8d7shB55VaAjnNqUZg0UeEhp5GF3noOxNW0SOLr3YRIGIUy2SKQbBEHU555rys= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770026495; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BT27XXnsF8PVSkgMhuFXuuDVDHqgX3B43iAqZHoPKug=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=h6rJ5sBh3dGqtGgAuAm/PnepzM0AQnbwPasT/69kjmRKF7FlgLlQncfpAgqasAubD1iVO9ShZNty+e2cyfZzSoSgxEdn1iDsRF7iRqpYfuMe5Lq5mRo/XAPXKsq4XXZm9gzBbAdwbj+MJnu/tP0rRwcE20VmEuq0X2/VXp7h4xs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=UfVdUp3Q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="UfVdUp3Q" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9824B20612; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:01:31 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOTzhElci5aq; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:01:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from EXCH-01.secunet.de (rl1.secunet.de [10.32.0.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CCB920049; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:01:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 1CCB920049 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1770026491; bh=i90NN/5ACiS0RzdU5ZdUhx8eXQk0YKRJrIylpjF8U/s=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UfVdUp3Qb/+taU+wKTnV9wx0KMoANOC6Ql+pGA7Z3CfVwkxSBpjgh10g3tYQQ0lx2 htHXLEJgKyJCx1Qvx4B/0+VpaXkDMCYYVJ2fJlT3sh0B0uHrqJmAbHlCnamk18TYd1 RmcP8z02WMcQA1zJatokmd0uMuD+4BFBEjpHnPlBcVmsFkxfHmKUN4s9Xvux6m9Z1N C9OyYc5xPFhhoKz4MGGnT7jKTT63kWP3LWX+Ye+B0skOiR2Z9KmuHT6nNP2Fkc31F1 iyaVNR1jizydWmHjYe0AePDOuDHFkJcjpnaTS2xbIESj2GzHCoVNFowW7X7kwYKe1R GhZnm4C1zWWyQ== Received: from secunet.com (10.182.7.193) by EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.17; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:01:29 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 1585532 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 02 Feb 2026 10:01:28 -0000 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:01:28 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert To: Leon Romanovsky CC: Tetsuo Handa , Sabrina Dubroca , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Ilan Tayari , Guy Shapiro , Yossi Kuperman , Network Development Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] xfrm: always flush state and policy upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event Message-ID: References: <20260201141739.GE34749@unreal> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260201141739.GE34749@unreal> X-ClientProxiedBy: EXCH-03.secunet.de (10.32.0.183) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 04:17:39PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Steffen, > > If you decide to take it, please queue it in your -next branch, so we will have enough > time to test in our regression. It seems too risky for -rc8. I plan to take the patch as is. It is a fix, so I'll take it into the ipsec tree, not ipsec-next. But I can hold it off until after the release if that will help regression testing.