From: 严海双 <yanhaishu...@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:58 +0800
>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>>> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
>>>>> 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 <a...@fb.com>
>>>>> Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <yanhaishu...@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
