From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Revert 'administrative down' address handling changes. Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:51:19 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20110123.234101.71098533.davem@davemloft.net> <20110124.233813.246546891.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@vyatta.com, brian.haley@hp.com, lorenzo@google.com, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:51516 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753104Ab1AYIv1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 03:51:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110124.233813.246546891.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:38:13 -0800 (PST)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller writes: > From: David Miller > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:41:01 -0800 (PST) > >> Eric B. and co., please do some testing to make sure all of your >> disable_ipv6 cases are functioning properly with this applied. > > Ping? In progress. I had to make a small change to your patch to get it to apply against 2.6.37. neigh_ifdown has not been removed from the beginning of addrconf_ifdown there. The piece that was failing for me is not failing now so, so far so good. It was reported that in 2.6.37 there was a new regression that 1connecting to ::1 when ipv6 was disabled would not fail immediately but would have to wait a while. With your patch applied I am not seeing that behavior either. Tomorrow I should know if I see any weird side effects with your patch, after my regression tests for everything else have finished running. My apologies for not testing Stephens patch more thoroughly in the lead up to 2.6.37. I goofed and bear some of the responsibility. Hopefully we can get the deeper problems fixed, and make Stephens use case work as well. Eric