On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:58:13 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote: > >> 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.
From the patch description it look like user-trigger-able hang of the FSM. But if this is more of a resiliency improvement than a fix then I'm perfectly fine with net-next. But then no Fixes tag and no stable at all, please.
