From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [Bug #14925] sky2 panic under load Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:31:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20100111203128.GA3139@del.dom.local> References: <4B4A729E.9060805@gmail.com> <20100111132647.GA11193@ff.dom.local> <201001112032.24243.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Berck E. Nash" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com ([209.85.220.225]:50640 "EHLO mail-fx0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751060Ab0AKUbe (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:31:34 -0500 Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so16589fxm.21 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:31:32 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201001112032.24243.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:32:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 11 January 2010, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 05:36:46PM -0700, Berck E. Nash wrote: > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > > > of recent regressions. > > > > > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > > > from 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > > > > (either way). > > > > BTW, I don't know why Berck didn't experience such a panic before > > 2.6.32, but seems not a regression to me. There might be new/more sky2 > > TX timeouts which trigger this panic and would make a real regression. > > Even if the code has always been broken, but it's only become visible after > 2.6.32, that still counts as a regression IMO, because now the users are > affected who weren't before. Right, but: 1) someone with a similar but older problem might be mislead a fix is not for them; 2) someone with exactly this one problem (i.e. Berck ;-) might be mislead "no oops" is enough, while their linux might be still worse than before. (So I intended Berck to re-consider or even re-check this problem wrt. 2.6.31, and maybe even reporting another regression.) Jarek P.