From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750922AbWDEBBv (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:01:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750924AbWDEBBv (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:01:51 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:61107 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbWDEBBv (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:01:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20060404.174741.63557413.davem@davemloft.net> To: rdreier@cisco.com Cc: gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org, bunk@stusta.de, jmforbes@linuxtx.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu, rdunlap@xenotime.net, davej@redhat.com, chuckw@quantumlinux.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, mst@mellanox.co.il, rolandd@cisco.com Subject: Re: [patch 11/26] IPOB: Move destructor from neigh->ops to neigh_param From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: <20060404.171739.92845421.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Roland Dreier Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:42:20 -0700 > David> You were using an interface in an unintended way. > > There were a lot of opportunities to suggest a better way or even just > raise the alarm when IPoIB was first being reviewed. And I don't > remember anyone giving any guidance or insight into the neighbour > destructor design the three or four times Michael raised the issue of > the IPoIB crash and posted this patch for review.... If I thought your change was appropriate for 2.6.16 I would have put it into that tree back then. Instead, I did not consider it appropriate, that's why we decided to put it into 2.6.17 Nothing since then has changed the situation. > If this patch is too risky for -stable, that's fine. But let's be > clear that it _does_ fix a panic people hit in practice, and as far as > I know it doesn't break the ATM build I think it's too risky. It fixes a panic for infiniband. I think you should not have submitted such a core networking change to -stable without passing it by netdev CC:'ing me first.