On 10/31/24 15:10, David Ahern wrote: > On 10/31/24 4:13 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> Given the issue is long-standing, and the fix is somewhat invasive, I >> suggest steering this patch on net-next. > > FWIW, I think net-next is best.
Should I count the above as a formal ack? :-P FWIW, I went through the patch as thoroughly as I could and LGTM, but it does not apply (anymore?) to net-next. @Omid: could you please rebase it on top of net-next and resend (with a proper net-next tag)? Thanks! Paolo
