Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:05:44AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:08:27PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 13.12.2023 11:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 12.12.2023 19:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:59:03PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 12.12.2023 18:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:16:54AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hello,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>                                DESCRIPTION
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This patchset fixes old problem with hungup of both rx/tx sides and adds
> > >>>>>> test for it. This happens due to non-default SO_RCVLOWAT value and
> > >>>>>> deferred credit update in virtio/vsock. Link to previous old patchset:
> > >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/39b2e9fd-601b-189d-39a9-914e5574524c@sberdevices.ru/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Patchset:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But I worry whether we actually need 3/8 in net not in net-next.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because of "Fixes" tag ? I think this problem is not critical and reproducible
> > >>>> only in special cases, but i'm not familiar with netdev process so good, so I don't
> > >>>> have strong opinion. I guess @Stefano knows better.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks, Arseniy
> > >>>
> > >>> Fixes means "if you have that other commit then you need this commit
> > >>> too". I think as a minimum you need to rearrange patches to make the
> > >>> fix go in first. We don't want a regression followed by a fix.
> > >>
> > >> I see, ok, @Stefano WDYT? I think rearrange doesn't break anything, because this
> > >> patch fixes problem that is not related with the new patches from this patchset.
> > > 
> > > I agree, patch 3 is for sure net material (I'm fine with both rearrangement or send it separately), but IMHO also patch 2 could be.
> > > I think with the same fixes tag, since before commit b89d882dc9fc ("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages") we sent a credit update
> > > for every bytes we read, so we should not have this problem, right?
> > 
> > Agree for 2, so I think I can rearrange: two fixes go first, then current 0001, and then tests. And send it as V9 for 'net' only ?
> > 
> > Thanks, Arseniy
> 
> 
> hmm why not net-next?

Oh I missed your previous discussion. I think everything in net-next is
safer.  Having said that, I won't nack it net, either.

> > > 
> > > So, maybe all the series could be "net".
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stefano
> > >