[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1416521035.8629.49.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:03:55 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc: Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)
On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 13:57 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 09:34 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't look into ipoib_header_ops, thought it might have some dependency
> >> on symbols.
> >
> > I did look before answering and suggesting this, you really should do
> > the same instead of giving advices of over engineering the stack.
> >
> > Best is the enemy of the good.
> >
> > Its hard to find some networking function trivial than this one.
>
> What about other modules defining *header_ops? Don't they
> need to move to vmlinux as well?
Yep, if they can be in a bonding device, for practical reasons, not to
prove your point.
>
> I still don't like this workaround even just for stable. Although
> definitely a real fix could be harder to backport, for me it is normal
> backport 8+ patches to stable:
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg66122.html
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg79967.html
>
> I know you disagree, I don't even want to waste time on arguing it.
Whatever, I really don't care.
Do your stuff, but don't ask people asking for an easy fix to do the
heart surgery.
Provide a patch, please.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists