Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:33:32 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>, j.vosburgh@gmail.com,
        vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, davem@davemloft.net,
        pabeni@redhat.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, oliver@neukum.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        huyd12@chinatelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode
Message-ID: <20220323083332.54dc0a6e@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <7288faa9-0bb1-4538-606d-3366a7a02da5@kernel.org>
References: <20220323120906.42692-1-sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
        <7288faa9-0bb1-4538-606d-3366a7a02da5@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:35:03 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/23/22 6:09 AM, Sun Shouxin wrote:
> > This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode.
>
> net-next is closed, so this set needs to be delayed until it re-opens.

What I'm not sure of is why this gets reposted after Jiri nacked
it. A conclusion needs to be reached on whether we want this
functionality in the first place. Or someone needs to explain 
to me what the conclusion is if I'm not reading the room right :)