From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752745AbaCGJVM (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:21:12 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:40752 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082AbaCGJVH (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:21:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:20:38 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: KY Srinivasan Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "olaf@aepfle.de" , "apw@canonical.com" , "jasowang@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Include the limit on the number of pfns we can handle Message-ID: <20140307092038.GG4774@mwanda> References: <1394176508-1439-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <20140307081627.GC29018@mwanda> <9037d4ef9c174fb280f00f22912c3d12@BY2PR03MB299.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9037d4ef9c174fb280f00f22912c3d12@BY2PR03MB299.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@oracle.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 1:46 PM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > devel@linuxdriverproject.org; olaf@aepfle.de; apw@canonical.com; > > jasowang@redhat.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Include the limit on the number > > of pfns we can handle > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:15:08PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > Increase the maximum number of pfns we can handle is a single vmbus > > packet. > > ^^ in > > Thanks Dan. I am traveling in India and it shows. I have already sent a corrected patch. > Yeah. I saw that. Thanks. > > > > > > > What are the user visible effects of this patch? > The current code will drop these packets that have more PFNs than the limit. > Upping the limit will mitigate this problem. > Meanwhile, the revised patch says that it is not a bugfix. It sort of sounds like upping the limit does improve performance for some people? I am confused now. regards, dan carpenter