Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:45:33 +0100 | From | Stefano Garzarella <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT |
| |
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@sberdevices.ru/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Patchset: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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@redhat.com> to each patch > >@Michael, @Stefano ?
Okay, let's do that ;-)
Stefano
| |