On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:20:33 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Quit being a grinch. I am working on it, just don't know the answer. I want to try a couple solutions, so far Eric's looks okay, just want to make sure that it doesn't break anything. You are over reacting. Doing on the fly re-enabling of ipv6 is a corner case. The problem was only discovered a couple of days ago, it is not like the world is burning down. -- _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
