From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] hv_netvsc: Correct the max receive buffer size Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:03:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20171208.110313.260350833079787907.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20171208001055.24670-1-sthemmin@microsoft.com> <20171208001055.24670-2-sthemmin@microsoft.com> <20171208103325.xt6nrzvxijewbdkl@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, sthemmin@microsoft.com, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: dan.carpenter@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:55122 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754124AbdLHQDO (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:03:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171208103325.xt6nrzvxijewbdkl@mwanda> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Dan Carpenter Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:33:25 +0300 > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 04:10:53PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> From: Haiyang Zhang >> >> It should be 31 MB on recent host versions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > This is very vague. What does "recent" mean in this context? There are > also some unrelated white space changes here which make the patch harder > to read. > > This patch kind of makes the bug fixed by patch 2 even worse because > before the receive buffer was capped at around 16MB and now we can set > the receive buffer to 31MB. It might make sense to fold the two > patches together. > > Is patch 2 a memory corruption bug? The changelog doesn't really say > what the user visible effects of the bug are. Basically if you make the > buffer too small then it's a performance issue but if you make it too > large what happens? It's not clear to me. Agreed with Dan, we definitely need more verbose and detailed commit log messages for this series.