On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:40:57PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:43:02 +0300
> > I see the following two alternatives for applying these
> > patches:
> > 1. Linger patch 2 in net-next to avoid surprises in the upcoming
> > release. In this case patch 3 can be reworked not to depend on
> > the new rt6_nexthop() definition in patch 2. I guess this is a
> > better option, so that patch 2 can be reviewed and tested for
> > longer time.
> > 2. Include all 3 patches in net tree - more risky because this
> > is my first attempt to change IPv6.
> I have decided to merge all three patches into -net right now.
> I've reviewed these patches several times and they look good
> to me.
> I'll let them cook upstream for at least a week before submitting them
> to -stable to let any last minute errors show themselves and
> subsequently get resolved.
FWIW, I have verified that these changes resolve the problem
that I reported with IPVS that I believe prompted Julian to write
these changes. That is IPv6 IPVS-DR once again works with these
changes in place.
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