From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751775AbaIETem (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:34:42 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:35833 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750906AbaIETek (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:34:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140905.122539.670916286627732128.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <CAHA+R7M1qd5g1ta=YFqefgXDf1EfF2_VsJGUvH6Dd+ttnHc_VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1409944376.5306.9.camel@localhost>
	<CAHA+R7NSu=wjGsmLapjM4Mbk_oeZ07P+yN0b982otvjoW2jodA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140905.122539.670916286627732128.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:34:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7MbsZhxB8uo3xvVsS6JWjRV4p2BcgCBVWtVaJ6Tr4ONYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv6: fix rtnl locking in setsockopt for anycast
 and multicast
From: Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
        Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@gmail.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        trinity@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:25 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> I thought the retention of RCU locking was reasonable, and that your
> feedback was something I disagreed with.
>
> This is different from ignoring your feedback.

The point is we don't need to backport the patch that far, as I already
mentioned, up to  commit c15b1ccadb323ea
("ipv6: move DAD and addrconf_verify processing to workqueue"),
simply because no one reports any bug.

So we don't have to adjust the patch just for stable in this case.