Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100 > Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> > Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we >> > > have so far: >> > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion. >> >> What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion >> thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would >> propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that >> people couldn't hit this, because deleting ::1 would break >> things on its own. >> >> Is there a real problem with Eric's fix? >> >> Thanks, >> > > If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then > Eric's fix doesn't work. It is common to use an additional address > on the lo device when doing routing protocols.
Sigh. I just got back to looking through the rest of my failures in 2.6.37 and despite it looking like it worked when i tested it, your patch doesn't actually work on my real work load that has broken. At least your change that confirmed that the root problem is somewhere in the routing. Eric _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
