On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:14:31PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
...
> So maybe in the end we should just merge d11a4dc18 that Ben found to be
> the least invasive one fixing the issues, and we'd be in sync with the
> rest of the stable branches, even if, as you noted a few days ago, it's
> only a partial fix for the issue.
>
> Ben, what's your opinion on this ? I know it's never fun to do backports
> and not merge them later, but I trust David more than anyone else on the
> network part, so if he decided that while incomplete, the patch above
> was all that was needed for other stable branches, maybe we should just
> stay on the safe side and do the same ?
There is a caveat to the minimally invasive fix: doing so will result in
cached routes always being lookup up when the check occurs. This could
potentially result in a performance regression from some users. The
tradeoffs here are really murky.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
