Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 13.12.2023 11:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> 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?

Agree for 2, so I think I can rearrange: two fixes go first, then current 0001, and then tests. And send it as V9 for 'net' only ?

Thanks, Arseniy

> 
> So, maybe all the series could be "net".
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
> 




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux