[stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[Brandeburg, Jesse]

Please consider commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f for 
inclusion in 2.6.32.y (it is already in 2.6.33.y)

Here is the commit message, it fixes a panic on machines with a larger 
number of cpus than ixgbe has tx queues (64).

commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f
Author: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed Feb 3 13:13:10 2010 +0000

    ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

    a developer had complained of getting lots of warnings:

    "eth16 selects TX queue 98, but real number of TX queues is 64"
    
	http://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02200.html

    As there was no follow up on that bug, I am submitting this
    patch assuming that the other return points will not return
    invalid txq's, and also that this fixes the bug (not tested).

    Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
    Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
    Acked-by: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Re: [stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[Brandeburg, Jesse]

putting davem on to: line...  sorry for not including on first email.

On Mon, 3 May 2010, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:

> Please consider commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f for 
> inclusion in 2.6.32.y (it is already in 2.6.33.y)
> 
> Here is the commit message, it fixes a panic on machines with a larger 
> number of cpus than ixgbe has tx queues (64).
> 
> commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f
> Author: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
> Date:   Wed Feb 3 13:13:10 2010 +0000
> 
>     ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq
> 
>     a developer had complained of getting lots of warnings:
> 
>     "eth16 selects TX queue 98, but real number of TX queues is 64"
>     
> 	http://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02200.html
> 
>     As there was no follow up on that bug, I am submitting this
>     patch assuming that the other return points will not return
>     invalid txq's, and also that this fixes the bug (not tested).
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
>     Acked-by: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> 
> 

Re: [stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[David Miller]

From: "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:02:25 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> putting davem on to: line...  sorry for not including on first email.

I'm fine with this.

Re: [stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> Please consider commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f for 
> inclusion in 2.6.32.y (it is already in 2.6.33.y)
> 
> Here is the commit message, it fixes a panic on machines with a larger 
> number of cpus than ixgbe has tx queues (64).
> 
> commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f

This doesn't apply at all on the .32-stable tree, as the logic has
changed there.  Care to properly backport it if you really need it
there?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] ixgbe: Fix return of invalid txq

[Jeff Kirsher]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:25, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
>> Please consider commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f for
>> inclusion in 2.6.32.y (it is already in 2.6.33.y)
>>
>> Here is the commit message, it fixes a panic on machines with a larger
>> number of cpus than ixgbe has tx queues (64).
>>
>> commit fdd3d631cddad20ad9d3e1eb7dbf26825a8a121f
>
> This doesn't apply at all on the .32-stable tree, as the logic has
> changed there.  Care to properly backport it if you really need it
> there?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> --

Sorry Greg, I will work on getting you a patch against your stable
tree before tomorrow night.

-- 
Cheers,
Jeff