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/[email protected]/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Patchset: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> to each patch > > @Michael, @Stefano ? > > Thanks, Arseniy
Fine by me. > > > >>>> > >>>> So, maybe all the series could be "net". > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Stefano > >>>> > >
