> On 8 Jun 2017, at 9:59 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ok, thanks.
