On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 18:12 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 17:59 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to > > something else probably do know better and so should be left alone. > > Regardless of that, I think that still the skb pointers would be changed > by this patch which would confuse the receiver of the SKB (device > driver), no? Has anyone verified that theory? :) Maybe receivers made wrong assumptions about some headers being set or not set ? A patch can uncover prior bugs. commit 76fe45812a3b134c3917 is an example of a fix we had to do because of another fix ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
