On Feb 12, 2008 9:49 PM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Natalie Protasevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:49:12 -0800 > > > Possible reason for this failure was identified and tested by the > > submitter and several other reporters that ran into the same problem. > > Can the patch be reviewed and pushed upstream if accepted (if the > > problem hasn't been addressed already)? > > There are a lot of bogus patches in there, using funny > long variable names, and mainly they were meant for testing > and verification of the problem. > > I see no real serious patch submissions in that bug and furthermore > the patch, if ready, should be submitted formally here to netdev not > rot in bugzilla. > > Finally, what appears to be the proposal cannot be correct. If the > fib6_add_rt2node() finds that the new route is a duplicate, we should > disconnect it from the fn->leaf and do a dst_release(). The bug > appears to be rather that we leave the route attached to the fn, not > that we drop the refrence to it. > > Thank you.
Thanks David for looking in this. I will give this thought to the diligent reporters, unless someone on the net team can produce a patch for them to test. Sometimes reporters come up with patches and I always try to make sure the patches end up on appropriate mailing list, and I will continue doing so :) Regards, --Natalie > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
