From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:12:35 -0500 (EST)
> From: Antonio Quartulli
> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:07:50 +0800
>
>> I know this kind of mails steal you some time, but do you have any plan
>> about merging net into net-next in the next days ?
>
> It's what I'm working on right
From: Antonio Quartulli
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:07:50 +0800
> I know this kind of mails steal you some time, but do you have any plan
> about merging net into net-next in the next days ?
It's what I'm working on right now.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 01:28:40PM +0800, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:37:18PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > And thanks for the heads up about the potential merge issues, I'll watch
> > for that.
> >
>
> Hi David,
>
> actually I just realized that the patches that will
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:37:18PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> And thanks for the heads up about the potential merge issues, I'll watch
> for that.
>
Hi David,
actually I just realized that the patches that will create the conflict
are not yet in net-next, but they are still pending in my queue
From: Antonio Quartulli
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:01:25 +0800
> this pull request is intended for net.
>
> Two of the fixes included in this patchset prevent a wrong memory
> access - it was triggered when removing an object from a list
> after it was already free'd due to bad reference counting
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:01:25PM +0800, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> this pull request is intended for net.
David,
when merging net into net-next these patches will create a conflict which git
should try to fix on its own.
However, it will still ask you to confirm something. Her
Hello David,
this pull request is intended for net.
Two of the fixes included in this patchset prevent a wrong memory
access - it was triggered when removing an object from a list
after it was already free'd due to bad reference counting.
This misbehaviour existed for both the gw_node and the
ori
