EF> Because anyone close to a maintainer would have pulled up kern/52469 to -7. MB> That would be more the commiter's job. But if someone can test a patch, MB> I can look at it. There's a patch in the PR that only needs to be pulled up. In fact, I'm running that patch on -6 (and it has been pulled up to -8).
EF> Because anyone close to a maintainer would have answered kern/52471. MB> Really, there is little information in this PR. I guess nobody tried MB> to guess what the author means (I certainly wont). For the record, the text (with a typo corrected) is: Even if using a gateway route, ipf_fastroute6() calls nd6_output()/ip6_if_output() with ifp == origfp. Is that correct? I would expect that a maintainer, understanding the inner workings, would easily be able to answer such a question. > I didn't play much with ipftest. But in any case this doesn't prevent > using ipf It doesn't prevent ipf usage, but it makes it substantially harder. I can only test my rule changes by deploying them, potentionally either interrupting 150 people's work or opening a hole. > that's an annoyance, but it doens't prevent using it Right, but I would have expected a maintainer to fix it.