|
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:49:39AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:52:14PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >
> > > I can enqueue this fix to nf if you like. No need to resend, I can
> > > manually apply.
> > >
> > > Let me know.
> >
> > It is not critical. I waited weeks the net tree to be
> > copied into net-next because it collides with the recent
> > "ipvs: make the service replacement more robust" change in
> > net tree :) But if a rcu_barrier in the netns cleanup looks
> > scary enough you can push it to nf. IMHO, it just adds
> > unneeded delay there.
>
> If it is not critical I would prefer for it to travel through
> nf-next. Though I do not feel strongly about this.
Will enqueue for nf-next.
I'd appreciate if you can recover the tradition of attaching a short
evaluation in the cover letter as I do when I send pull requests to
David. Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
