On 23-08-16 08:59, Kalle Valo wrote: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> writes: > >>>>> This is great work but due to the regressions I'm not sure if this >>>>> will be ready for 4.9. To get more testing time I wonder if we should >>>>> wait for 4.10? IMHO applying this in the end of the cycle is too risky >>>>> and we should try to maximise the time linux-next by applying this >>>>> just after -rc1 is released. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Well, now that we understand what is causing the throughput regressions, >>>> fixing them should be fairly straight forward (yeah, famous last words, >>>> but still...). I already have a patch for the fast path and will go poke >>>> at the slow path next. It'll probably require another workaround or two, >>>> so I guess it won't be the architecturally clean ideal solution; but it >>>> would make it possible to have something that works for 4.9 and then >>>> iterate for a cleaner design for 4.10. >>> >>> But if we try to rush this to 4.9 it won't be in linux-next for long. We >>> are now in -rc3 and let's say that the patches are ready to apply in two >>> weeks. That would leave us only two weeks of -next time before the merge >>> window, which I think is not enough for a controversial patch like this >>> one. There might be other bugs lurking which haven't been found yet. >> >> What, other hidden bugs? Unpossible! :) > > Yeah, right ;) > >> Would it be possible to merge the partial solution (which is ready now, >> basically) and fix the slow path in a separate patch later? > > What do you mean with partial solution? You mean ath9k users would > suffer from regressions until they are fixed? We can't do that. > >> (Just spit-balling here; I'm still fairly new to this process. But I am >> concerned that we'll hit a catch-22 where we can't get wider testing >> before it's "ready" and we can't prove that it's "ready" until we've had >> wider testing...) So could the wider testing be accomplished by working on a branch in the wireless-testing repo and make its availability known on wireless-list, ath?k-list, LWN or whatever. Regards, Arend > I understand your point, but I don't want to rush this to 4.9 and then > start getting lots of bug reports and eventually forced to revert it. If > we just found a new serious regression the chances are that there are > more lurking somewhere and this patch is just not ready yet.
