From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: revert "add byte queue limit support". Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:11:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20120724111120.GA14840@zod.bos.redhat.com> References: <20120723205555.GA4392@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <1343106407.2626.11038.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120724053811.GA12053@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , hayeswang@realtek.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Villac=EDs?= Lasso , Tom Herbert To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47175 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456Ab2GXLLr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:11:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120724053811.GA12053@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:38:11AM +0200, Francois Romieu wrote: > Eric Dumazet : > > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 22:55 +0200, Francois Romieu wrote: > > > This reverts commit 036dafa28da1e2565a8529de2ae663c37b7a0060. > [...] > > bisection is not always the right way to qualify a problem. > > I know. At some point I switch from "I could search more" to "users situation > will improve in a definite timeframe". > > > BQL in itself had some fixes coming _after_ commit 036dafa28da1e2565 > > Thanks. > > They are in stable as of 3.4.5: > > commit 4f4bdaeb40df95499c1ee7ea3fbca9d76174a59e > Author: Hiroaki SHIMODA > AuthorDate: Wed May 30 12:25:37 2012 +0000 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman > CommitDate: Mon Jul 16 09:03:43 2012 -0700 > > bql: Avoid possible inconsistent calculation. > > [ Upstream commit 914bec1011a25f65cdc94988a6f974bfb9a3c10d ] > [...] > commit 1414a53d956340ca8b1b27e05ab94ba63e82ed97 > Author: Hiroaki SHIMODA > AuthorDate: Wed May 30 12:25:19 2012 +0000 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman > CommitDate: Mon Jul 16 09:03:43 2012 -0700 > > bql: Avoid unneeded limit decrement. > > I have obviously not directed users at them and I do not see any > of the victims using a non -stable / -vendor or recent enough > kernel to test this patch since the issue has been reported. > > They are both worth testing. Fedora has 3.4.5 in the F16 updates-testing repo. F17 is already on 3.4.6 in stable updates. Users should be able to use those kernels for testing. F16 will be getting 3.4.6 submitted this morning for updates-testing. josh