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. Thanks Dave, 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
