Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > >> Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >>> >>>> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to this >>>> patchset. >>>> right ? >>> Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward: >>> >>> 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone... >>> 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which can >>> point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of the >>> bug or revealing yet another bug... >>> >>> The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well since >>> the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show the >>> place from where the problem originates because we will know that it got >>> triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to go for >>> that depends on the time you want to invest in it... >>> >>> ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case it >>> would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it on top >>> of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem is gone, >>> it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught. >> I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent and that >> last one which applied fine. > > Ah, that's path 1) then... Since you seem to have enough time, I would say > that the path 1 is good as well and bugs unrelated to the fix will show up > there too...
arg. yes. sorry for the confusion. > I should have stated it explicitly that with path 2 those 3 patches should > not be applied because the aim is not a fix but reproducal. Path 2 was > intentionally left without the potentional fix as then nice backtrace > informs when we can stop trying (which would hopefully occurred > pretty soon) :-). But lets discard that path 2... I have 2 spare nodes so i'll run both. 1) is on already without any issues i'm just compiling 2) I usually work on -mm, so what would be interesting for me is to have what you need in net-2.6.24 which is getting pulled in -mm by andrew. then, if you need an extra patch for verbosity, that's fine, i'll include it in my usual patchset. Cheers, C. >> all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24 > > That's fine, they're pretty well in sync (mm and net-2.6.24, and > soon 2.6.24-rcs too). > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
