On 1/21/26 12:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 09:29:14 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote: >> On 1/19/26 9:22 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 06:49:20 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote: >>>> The current ad_churn_machine implementation only transitions the >>>> actor/partner churn state to churned or none after the churn timer expires. >>>> However, IEEE 802.1AX-2014 specifies that a port should enter the none >>>> state immediately once the actor’s port state enters synchronization. >>> >>> Paolo, how do you feel about his patch with 2+ weeks until final? >>> The first patch is definitely suitable for net. If this one is not >>> it should not have a Fixes tag. I'd lean towards getting them all >>> into -rc7 if we can. >> >> My personal preference would be for 2/3 landing into net-next: the code >> looks correct to me, but refactor has IMHO still to much potential for >> regressions do land directly into net and the blamed commit is quite old. >> >> I suggested targeting net-next while retaining the Fixes tag as we >> already had complex fixes landing into net-next in the past. > > The appropriate way to delay propagation of the fix to add: > > Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks > > not to merge things into -next.
I went over the code as carefully as I could and I don't see any obvious problem, so I don't have a so strong opinion vs net, but to hopefully clarify: my thinking is that this is net-next material because it's an invasive refactor with behavior change. My preference would be let the code be tested in next/net-next for a while before landing into mainline. /P
