Re: [PATCH net-next V7 0/4] Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / netback

[Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3323 bytes --]

On 03.02.2014 11:49, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 03.02.2014 11:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 10:30 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:23:25PM -0800, Matt Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:53:35PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:41:39PM +0100, David Miller wrote:
>>>>>> From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:20:39 +0100
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series is now rebased onto net-next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would also like to ask you to queue it for stable-ish tree. I can do the
>>>>>>> backport if necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All applied, but this was a disaster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I misunderstood the workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want bug fixes propagated into -stable you submit them to 'net'
>>>>>> from the beginning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no other method by which to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By merging all of these changes to net-next, you will now have to get
>>>>>> them accepted again into 'net', and then (and only then) can you make
>>>>>> a request for -stable inclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Understood. Will submit them against 'net' later.
>>>>
>>>> Did this ever happen? Is 9ecd1a75 (xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size
>>>> to account for max TCP header) at all related to the "skb rides the
>>>> rocket" related TX packet drops reported against 3.8.x kernels?
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-lts-raring/+bug/1195474
>>>>
>>>> It seems like there are still some outstanding bugs in various -stable
>>>> releases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I can remember Ian and I requested relavant patches be
>>> backported in May, after these series settled in mainline for some time.
>>>
>>> <1369734465.3469.52.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
>>>
>>> These series was backported to 3.9.y-stable tree. 3.8.y didn't pick them
>>> up.
>>
>> The stable guys don't maintain every tree indefinitely, usually only for
>> a couple of releases after the next mainline release or something (I
>> suppose you can find the official policy online somewhere). Presumably
>> these fixes came too late for the 3.8.y branch.
>>
>> Longterm stable trees are an exception and get longer backports, I don't
>> think 3.8 is one of those though.
>>
>> If anyone wants further backports then they will need to speak to the
>> Linux stable maintainers, although they should probably expect a "this
>> stable tree is now closed" type response for 3.8.
>>
>> Or perhaps the above link implies that Canonical are supporting their
>> own LTS of Linux 3.8.y -- in which case the request should be made to
>> whoever that maintainer is.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
> Yeah, it would be a Canonical maintained longterm tree. I am just checking to
> verify which ones are missing the series. I will send out a request to pull them
> in after that.
> 
> -Stefan
> 

It turns out that most of the series was applied to the 3.8.y.z longterm we look
after and through that made its way into the Raring kernel which is based on
that. Only the first patch of the series fails to apply. But that is only
changing a error message which actually looks to be correct in that series.

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/linux-3.8.y

-Stefan


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel