On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
quoted
When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
dst_release to free it in error code path.
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <redacted>
I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
hmm. right.
Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
breaking the logic...
On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
quoted
When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
dst_release to free it in error code path.
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <redacted>
I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
hmm. right.
Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
breaking the logic...
Sorry for my previous fault, I tried to fix this problem in theory without testing carefully.
I have tested the latest patches, it works ok now.
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
quoted
When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
dst_release to free it in error code path.
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <redacted>
I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
hmm. right.
Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
breaking the logic...
Anyone who posts new patches this patch isn't testing things thoroughly at all.
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Date: 2017-06-08 14:00:10
From: 严海双 <redacted>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:58 +0800
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
quoted
When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
dst_release to free it in error code path.
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <redacted>
I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
hmm. right.
Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
breaking the logic...
Sorry for my previous fault, I tried to fix this problem in theory without testing carefully.
I have tested the latest patches, it works ok now.
This does not instill a lot of confidence in us.
I want someone else to test these patches, then you can resubmit them
with proper Tested-by: tags added, since you thought it was OK to submit
a patch without testing in the first place.
On 8 Jun 2017, at 9:59 PM, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:
From: 严海双 <redacted>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:58 +0800
quoted
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
quoted
When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
dst_release to free it in error code path.
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <redacted>
I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
hmm. right.
Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
breaking the logic...
Sorry for my previous fault, I tried to fix this problem in theory without testing carefully.
I have tested the latest patches, it works ok now.
This does not instill a lot of confidence in us.
I want someone else to test these patches, then you can resubmit them
with proper Tested-by: tags added, since you thought it was OK to submit
a patch without testing in the first place.