From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764793AbXGPVvj (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:51:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752792AbXGPVv2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:51:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:48721 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764264AbXGPVv1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:51:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:51:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, olaf.kirch@oracle.com Subject: Re: [patch] revert: [NET]: Fix races in net_rx_action vs netpoll Message-ID: <20070716215117.GA25097@elte.hu> References: <20070716091236.GA10718@elte.hu> <20070716.042640.18306462.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds wrote: > With MSI, edge-triggered interrupts are making a comeback in a big > way, and yeah, e1000 is one of the drivers that do MSI. Ingo might > want to confirm whether it's actually enabled for him, and whether > turning it off might hide the problem, but if that's it, then the > whole patch is fundamentally broken, and not worth saving. MSI was off for the test: # CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not set full config is at: http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/config the hang-log is at: http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/hang.log netconsole output went silent during the last tx-timeout message. (the above hang.log is from dmesg) > but in either case (or, indeed, even if I didn't see any problem at > all), I think reverting a patch that isn't needed is _always_ the > right choice. > > If we don't know what caused a problem in the first place, or if the > fix is known to be required for something else and reverting it would > cause *another* regression, it would be another issue. But as it is, > reverting it would seem to unquestionably get rid of a regression, and > is thus a no-brainer. > > No? i also offered to quickly try any test-version of the fixed patch, so there's a real and deterministic path towards fixing the patch. The regression is obvious and triggers all the time. Ingo