Hi ----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:54:54AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:20:56AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > sent a follow-up response to GET_FEATURES), I am now wondering if > > > > > this > > > > > patch > > > > > may break existing vhost applications too ? If so, reverting it > > > > > possibly > > > > > better. > > > > > What confuses me is why it doesn’t fail all the time, but only about > > > > > 20% > > > > > to > > > > > 30% time as Fam reports. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts : Michael, Fam, MarcAndre ? > > > > > > > > Indeed, I didn't ack that patch in the first place for that kind of > > > > reasons, so I would revert it. > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > I guess that's the safest thing to do for 2.7. > > > At least that's not any worse than 2.6. > > > I still think it's a good idea long term and test should be fixed, > > > but let's revert for now. > > > > > > > What about other backends that may have similar expectations from the > > protocol. > > > > This patch is a hack, there is no reason to have it upstream. > > The reason is to avoid crashes with existing backends.
Which backend? I had a similar issue, it wasn't about crashes, and Prerna didn't mention crashes either, but anyway there is not guarantee that adding a GET_FEATURES message will solve it... > > The solution is provided with the REPLY_ACK patch. > > It needs a backend update though. > > But the issue is old, it's not a regression. I think we lose nothing > by pushing the work-around out until after 2.7. > > -- > MST >
