On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:49:52AM -0600, Captain Wiggum wrote: > >Hi Sasha, > > > >This patch cannot be applied to upstream, the code is significantly different. > >Therefore, this un-do patch would not be seen in the upstream git log. > >It was solved there by coding a better solution, not by the un-do patch. > > Okay, so this is effectively a request to diverge the -stable tree from > upstream in a non-trivial way, which is why I asked David Miller to ack > this act explcitly (or to send me patches, or whatever else he thinks is > appropriate here). I believe that applying this patch series: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1029418/ from upstream will achieve the desired outcome (assuming it applies cleanly). > > >Please consider this: > >Upstream passes the TAHI IPv6 protocol tests. All the LTS kernels do NOT. > >This is the patch that causes the failure in 4.9, 4.14, 4.19 LTS kernels. > > I very much agree that this should get fixed. My concerns are not with > the bug but are with the proposed fix as it applies to -stable trees. > > >And this patch has been in place with 4.9.134, a long time. > >It is not right that "Linux" can not pass the IPv6 protocol test. > >My executive are asking me why "Linux" is not fit for IPv6 deployments. > > Arguments such as this carry no weight in a more technical discussion > such as this. Yes, some tests are currently broken, but we will not take > shortcuts just because "executives are unhappy". > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha
