From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:42:20 -0700
> David> You were using an interface in an unintended way.
>
> There were a lot of opportunities to suggest a better way or even just
> raise the alarm when IPoIB was first being reviewed. And I don't
> remember anyone giving any guidance or insight into the neighbour
> destructor design the three or four times Michael raised the issue of
> the IPoIB crash and posted this patch for review....
If I thought your change was appropriate for 2.6.16 I would have put
it into that tree back then. Instead, I did not consider it
appropriate, that's why we decided to put it into 2.6.17
Nothing since then has changed the situation.
> If this patch is too risky for -stable, that's fine. But let's be
> clear that it _does_ fix a panic people hit in practice, and as far as
> I know it doesn't break the ATM build
I think it's too risky. It fixes a panic for infiniband.
I think you should not have submitted such a core networking change to
-stable without passing it by netdev CC:'ing me first.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
