From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: tx timeout fix Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:59:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20090427115945.d736ac1f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <49F361E4.4050605@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ayaz Abdulla Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37843 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754554AbZD0TCl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:02:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49F361E4.4050605@nvidia.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:17:56 -0400 Ayaz Abdulla wrote: > This patch fixes the tx_timeout() to properly handle the clean up of the > tx ring. It also sets the tx put pointer back to the correct position to > be in sync with HW. It's unclear (to me) what the real-world impact of this bugfix is. There isn't enough information here to decide whether the fix should be backported to 2.6.29 (and earlier?). What is the user-visible behaviour change? What hardware does it affect? What is the risk that the change will inadvertently break other setups? etc. Please always provide such information in the changelogs.