From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:05:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4703A1BB.1040006@free.fr> References: <1191409218982-git-send-email-ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> <470383D4.9060307@free.fr> <47038FAB.9020106@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , Netdev To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= Return-path: Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.36]:42786 "EHLO smtp6-g19.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755153AbXJCOFt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:05:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >=20 >> Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >>> >>>> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to thi= s patchset.=20 >>>> right ? >>> Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward: >>> >>> 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone= =2E.. >>> 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which c= an=20 >>> point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of t= he >>> bug or revealing yet another bug... >>> >>> The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well s= ince=20 >>> the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show= the=20 >>> place from where the problem originates because we will know that i= t got=20 >>> triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to= go for=20 >>> that depends on the time you want to invest in it... >>> >>> ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case= it=20 >>> would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it o= n top=20 >>> of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem i= s gone,=20 >>> it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught. >> I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent a= nd that >> last one which applied fine. >=20 > Ah, that's path 1) then... Since you seem to have enough time, I woul= d say=20 > that the path 1 is good as well and bugs unrelated to the fix will sh= ow up=20 > there too... arg. yes. sorry for the confusion. > I should have stated it explicitly that with path 2 those 3 patches s= hould=20 > not be applied because the aim is not a fix but reproducal. Path 2 wa= s=20 > intentionally left without the potentional fix as then nice backtrace= =20 > informs when we can stop trying (which would hopefully occurred=20 > pretty soon) :-). But lets discard that path 2... I have 2 spare nodes so i'll run both. 1) is on already without any iss= ues i'm just compiling 2) I usually work on -mm, so what would be interesting for me is to have w= hat you=20 need in net-2.6.24 which is getting pulled in -mm by andrew. then, if y= ou need=20 an extra patch for verbosity, that's fine, i'll include it in my usual = patchset. Cheers, C. =20 >> all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24 >=20 > That's fine, they're pretty well in sync (mm and net-2.6.24, and=20 > soon 2.6.24-rcs too). >=20