On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:03:41PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:54:02 -0400
> > For the most part, every patch does the same essential thing: removes the
> > MTU range checking from the drivers' ndo_change_mtu function, puts those
> > ranges into the core net_device min_mtu and max_mtu fields, and where
> > possible, removes ndo_change_mtu functions entirely.
> Jarod, please read my other posting.

Done, didn't see it until just after I'd hit send, have replied there as

> You've positively broken the maximum MTU for all of these drivers.
> That's not cool.
> And this series fixing things doesn't make things better, because now
> we've significanyly broken bisection for anyone running into this
> regression.

Agreed, and my suggestion right now is to revert the 2nd patch from the
prior series. I believe it can be resubmitted after all other callers of
ether_setup() have been converted to have their own min/max_mtu.

> You should have arranged this in such a way that the drivers needing
> > 1500 byte MTU were not impacted at all by your changes, but that
> isn't what happened.

Yeah, I must admit to not looking closely enough at the state the first
two patches left things in. It was absolutely my intention to not alter
behaviour in any way, but I neglected to test sufficiently without this
additional set applied.

Jarod Wilson

Reply via email to