From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [stable] [stable-2.6.32 PATCH] ixgbe: backport bug fix for tx panic Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:18:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20100525201837.GA13821@kroah.com> References: <20100511004655.30590.74584.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jeff Kirsher , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@kernel.org" , Brandon , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" To: "Brandeburg, Jesse" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:27:25AM -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >=20 > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 17:46, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > From: Jesse Brandeburg > > > > > > backporting this commit: > > > > > > commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f > > > Author: Krishna Kumar > > > Date: =A0 Wed Feb 3 13:13:10 2010 +0000 > > > > > > =A0 =A0ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq > > > > > > =A0 =A0a developer had complained of getting lots of warnings: > > > > > > =A0 =A0"eth16 selects TX queue 98, but real number of TX queues i= s 64" > > > > > > =A0 =A0http://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.= net/msg02200.html > > > > > > =A0 =A0As there was no follow up on that bug, I am submitting thi= s > > > =A0 =A0patch assuming that the other return points will not retur= n > > > =A0 =A0invalid txq's, and also that this fixes the bug (not teste= d). > > > > > > =A0 =A0Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar > > > =A0 =A0Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg > > > =A0 =A0Acked-by: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr > > > =A0 =A0Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher > > > =A0 =A0Signed-off-by: David S. Miller > > > > > > CC: Brandon > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg > > > --- > > > > > > =A0drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | =A0 =A08 ++++++-- > > > =A01 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > >=20 > > Greg - status? Did you queue this patch for the stable release and= I missed it? >=20 > Maybe we didn't say (and we should have) that this fixes a panic on=20 > machines with > 64 cores. Please apply to -stable 32. I'll get to it for the next release after this one, if that's ok. thanks, greg k-h