From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don???t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good. To: David Miller References: <57253527.7010009@candelatech.com> <20160501053059.GA26097@1wt.eu> <5736076F.10003@candelatech.com> <20160513.142121.1201664846732017162.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: w@1wt.eu, vijayp@vijayp.ca, tom@herbertland.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, sd@queasysnail.net, hannes@stressinduktion.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cwang@twopensource.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ej@evanjones.ca, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, phil@nwl.cc, makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com From: Ben Greear Message-ID: <57361B8A.70404@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:23:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160513.142121.1201664846732017162.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/13/2016 11:21 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:57:19 -0700 > >> How do you feel about a new socket-option to allow a socket to >> request the old veth behaviour? > > I depend upon the opinions of the experts who work upstream on and > maintain these components, since it is an area I am not so familiar > with. > > Generally speaking asking me directly for opinions on matters like > this isn't the way to go, in fact I kind of find it irritating. It > can't all be on me. > Fair enough, thanks for your time. Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com