On 10.07.23 18:55, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 06:36:32 +0200 Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: >> To chime in here: I most agree, but FWIW, it broke more than a decade >> ago in v3.0, so maybe this is better suited for net-next. But of course >> that up to the -net maintainers. > > I'm surprised to see you suggest -next for a fix to a user reported bug. > IMO it's very firmly net material. Yes, yes, normally it would argue the other way around. :-D But Linus a few times in one way or another argued that time is a factor when it comes to regressions. Here for example: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ But there are no "semantic changes that now mean that fixing the regression could cause a _new_ regression" here I guess. And what he was talking about there is quite different from this case as well (I vaguely remember a better example, but I can't find it; whatever). In the end this is one of issue where I don't care much. :-D Ciao, Thorsten
