From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [Bug #14925] sky2 panic under load Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:50:17 +0100 Message-ID: <201001112150.17166.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201001112032.24243.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100111203128.GA3139@del.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Berck E. Nash" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:35232 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754162Ab0AKUt7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:49:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100111203128.GA3139@del.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 11 January 2010, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > 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; Not if the fix changelog mentions the older kernels explicitly. > 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.) Yes, rechecking the problem with 2.6.31 would be useful. Rafael