On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
On 12.12.2023 19:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:59:03PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
On 12.12.2023 18:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:16:54AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
Hello,
DESCRIPTION
This patchset fixes old problem with hungup of both rx/tx sides and adds
test for it. This happens due to non-default SO_RCVLOWAT value and
deferred credit update in virtio/vsock. Link to previous old patchset:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/39b2e9fd-601b-189d-39a9-914e5574524c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Patchset:
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
But I worry whether we actually need 3/8 in net not in net-next.
Because of "Fixes" tag ? I think this problem is not critical and reproducible
only in special cases, but i'm not familiar with netdev process so good, so I don't
have strong opinion. I guess @Stefano knows better.
Thanks, Arseniy
Fixes means "if you have that other commit then you need this commit
too". I think as a minimum you need to rearrange patches to make the
fix go in first. We don't want a regression followed by a fix.
I see, ok, @Stefano WDYT? I think rearrange doesn't break anything,
because this
patch fixes problem that is not related with the new patches from this patchset.
I agree, patch 3 is for sure net material (I'm fine with both
rearrangement or send it separately), but IMHO also patch 2 could be.
I think with the same fixes tag, since before commit b89d882dc9fc
("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages") we sent a credit update
for every bytes we read, so we should not have this problem, right?
So, maybe all the series could be "net".
Thanks,
Stefano
