On 13.12.2023 18:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:05:44AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:08:27PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> hmm why not net-next? > > Oh I missed your previous discussion. I think everything in net-next is > safer. Having said that, I won't nack it net, either. So, summarizing all above: 1) This patchset entirely goes to net-next as v9 2) I reorder patches like 3 - 2 - 1 - 4, e.g. two fixes goes first with Fixes tag 3) Add Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> to each patch @Michael, @Stefano ? Thanks, Arseniy > >>>> >>>> So, maybe all the series could be "net". >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Stefano >>>> >
