On 4/25/16 2:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:40:26 -0600
It's unfortunate you want to take that action. Last week I came across
a prior attempt by Stephen to do this same thing -- keep IPv6
addresses. That prior attempt was reverted by commit
73a8bd74e261. Cumulus, Brocade, and others clearly want this
capability.
But nobody has implemented it correctly, it doesn't matter who wants
the feature. That's why it keeps getting reverted.
Also, this testing you are talking about should have happened long
before you submitted that first patch that introduced all of these
regressions. My observations tell me that the bulk of the testing
happened afterwards and that's why all the regressions are popping up
now.
My testing when submitting the patch was host level: Add an address,
while(1) (link up, link down), delete an address, etc.
Once it was committed to our kernel it started getting hit with a range
of L3 deployment scenarios with many nodes and networking config files
are uploaded and jumped between on real switch hardware - no reboot but
'networking reload' on the fly. Jumping between different deployments
with different sets addresses, routes, vrf devices, bridges, bonds, etc.
Your objection seems to be 'all these regressions' but beyond the ref
count from Andrey all of the bug reports have come from me with 1 from
Mike, another invested party wanting this to happen. I am the one who
spent the hours dealing with the kernel panics. My patch, my bug, my
time wasted coming up with the delta patch. Rather than focusing on my
mistakes, why not see the commitment on following through with this change?
