On 11/22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:04:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> I also noticed that the kernel test robot had screwed up the
>>> participants list for some reason, and had
>>>
>>> "Acked-by: Alexan
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:07:16PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:04:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I also noticed that the kernel test robot had screwed up the
participants list for some reason, and had
"Ack
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:04:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> I also noticed that the kernel test robot had screwed up the
>> participants list for some reason, and had
>>
>> "Acked-by: Alexander Duyck , David S.
>> Miller"
>>
>> a
Hi Linus,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:04:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[snip]
I also noticed that the kernel test robot had screwed up the
participants list for some reason, and had
"Acked-by: Alexander Duyck , David S.
Miller"
as one of the participants. So there's some odd commit parsi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> This is fixed by :
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=c9b8af1330198ae241cd545e1f040019010d44d9
Thanks guys. This was one of the less esoteric-looking regressions, so
I'm happy to hear it's solved.
On Tue, Nov 22, 14:04, Linus Torvalds wrote
> what's the situation on this issue? The bisection looks a bit odd,
> but the commit in question does end up changing the key_control->thoff
> value for the failure case, so maybe that in turn ends up screwing up
> a later skb_pull.
>
> I'm not seeing
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> David, Eric,
>
> what's the situation on this issue? The bisection looks a bit odd,
> but the commit in question does end up changing the key_control->thoff
> value for the failure case, so maybe that in turn ends up screwing up
> a later s
David, Eric,
what's the situation on this issue? The bisection looks a bit odd,
but the commit in question does end up changing the key_control->thoff
value for the failure case, so maybe that in turn ends up screwing up
a later skb_pull.
I'm not seeing anything that might fix this in the last n
