From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:16:11 -0800
> No but since removing address propagates up to user space daemons > like Quagga please analyze and fix the problem, don't just look > for band aid. Stephen, we lived with the previous behavior for 12+ years. You broke stuff that did work before your change. Putting the onus on Eric to fix it exactly how you want it to be fixed is therefore not appropriate. You seem to be putting exactly zero effort into trying to reproduce the problem yourself and fixing a bug you introduced. And hey we have a standard way to deal with a regression when the guilty party is uncooperative, revert. There are therefore three choices: 1) Revert. And this is the one I'm favoring because of how you are handling this issue. The responsibility to resolve this regression is your's not Eric's. Frankly, Eric is being incredibly nice by working on trying to fix a bug which you introduced. 2) Accept Eric's proposed fix. 3) Figure out the real bug yourself and fix the problem the way you find acceptable in a reasonable, short, amount of time. Loopback has always been special, especially on ipv6. When we don't have a device to point something at, we point it at loopback. Also destination cache entries which still have references when they get zapped get pointed at loopback. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
