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 Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:11:57PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:


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 ?

Okay, let's do that ;-)

Stefano





[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux