On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 19:51 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > I see you queued this for 2.6.26 -- I'd have thought that this would go > > to 2.6.25 as it is a bug fix. What do you think? > > I didn't think it was serious enough to go in at the rc5/rc6 stage. > It's borderline even to call it a bug, and the workaround is pretty > trivial -- "don't do that then."
While certainly we'd want to avoid large changes for minor bugs this late in the -rc cycle, a small, obvious change to ensure protocol correctness would be fine in my opinion. The problem with the workaround is that you won't hit the exception case until you have memory fragmentation, and then you get a dropped/hung SRP connection or in the hopefully unlikely case, data corruption. And even then you're not likely to realize that you made the sg table too large -- it does not have an obvious link to the symptoms. That said, I'm not vehement about it waiting an extra cycle. I know to keep my sg table entries down, and hopefully others that don't know there is an issue will be reading the list. Since it won't be in an OFED release for a while, I'd bet they're unlikely to be upgrading to 2.6.25 in any event. -- Dave Dillow National Center for Computational Science Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 241-6602 office _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
