From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] ipv6: use rt6i_gateway as nexthop Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:28:15 +0900 Message-ID: <20131028012815.GL849@verge.net.au> References: <1382272985-1528-1-git-send-email-ja@ssi.bg> <20131021.184057.328665907625927061.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ja@ssi.bg, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:43137 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754546Ab3J1B2S (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:28:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131021.184057.328665907625927061.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:40:57PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Julian Anastasov > Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:43:02 +0300 > > > I see the following two alternatives for applying these > > patches: > > > > 1. Linger patch 2 in net-next to avoid surprises in the upcoming > > release. In this case patch 3 can be reworked not to depend on > > the new rt6_nexthop() definition in patch 2. I guess this is a > > better option, so that patch 2 can be reviewed and tested for > > longer time. > > > > 2. Include all 3 patches in net tree - more risky because this > > is my first attempt to change IPv6. > > I have decided to merge all three patches into -net right now. > I've reviewed these patches several times and they look good > to me. > > I'll let them cook upstream for at least a week before submitting them > to -stable to let any last minute errors show themselves and > subsequently get resolved. Thanks Dave, FWIW, I have verified that these changes resolve the problem that I reported with IPVS that I believe prompted Julian to write these changes. That is IPv6 IPVS-DR once again works with these changes in place.