From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:33:25 +0300 > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 04:10:53PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> From: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> It should be 31 MB on recent host versions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This is very vague. What does "recent" mean in this context? There are > also some unrelated white space changes here which make the patch harder > to read. > > This patch kind of makes the bug fixed by patch 2 even worse because > before the receive buffer was capped at around 16MB and now we can set > the receive buffer to 31MB. It might make sense to fold the two > patches together. > > Is patch 2 a memory corruption bug? The changelog doesn't really say > what the user visible effects of the bug are. Basically if you make the > buffer too small then it's a performance issue but if you make it too > large what happens? It's not clear to me. Agreed with Dan, we definitely need more verbose and detailed commit log messages for this series. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
