On 13.12.2023 12:41, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:08:27PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.12.2023 11:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12.12.2023 19:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:59:03PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12.12.2023 18:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:16:54AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DESCRIPTION
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patchset fixes old problem with hungup of both rx/tx sides and
>>>>>>>> adds
>>>>>>>> test for it. This happens due to non-default SO_RCVLOWAT value and
>>>>>>>> deferred credit update in virtio/vsock. Link to previous old patchset:
>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patchset:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I worry whether we actually need 3/8 in net not in net-next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of "Fixes" tag ? I think this problem is not critical and
>>>>>> reproducible
>>>>>> only in special cases, but i'm not familiar with netdev process so good,
>>>>>> so I don't
>>>>>> have strong opinion. I guess @Stefano knows better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Arseniy
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes means "if you have that other commit then you need this commit
>>>>> too". I think as a minimum you need to rearrange patches to make the
>>>>> fix go in first. We don't want a regression followed by a fix.
>>>>
>>>> I see, ok, @Stefano WDYT? I think rearrange doesn't break anything,
>>>> because this
>>>> patch fixes problem that is not related with the new patches from this
>>>> patchset.
>>>
>>> I agree, patch 3 is for sure net material (I'm fine with both rearrangement
>>> or send it separately), but IMHO also patch 2 could be.
>>> I think with the same fixes tag, since before commit b89d882dc9fc
>>> ("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages") we sent a credit update
>>> for every bytes we read, so we should not have this problem, right?
>>
>> Agree for 2, so I think I can rearrange: two fixes go first, then current
>> 0001, and then tests. And send it as V9 for 'net' only ?
>
> Maybe you can add this to patch 1 if we want it on net:
>
> Fixes: e38f22c860ed ("vsock: SO_RCVLOWAT transport set callback")
>
> Then I think that patch should go before patch 2, so we don't need to
> touch that code multiple times.
>
> so, IMHO the order should be the actual order or 3 - 1 - 2 - 4.
>
> Another option is to send just 2 & 3 to net, and the rest (1 & 4) to
> net-next. IMHO should be fine to send the entire series to net with the fixes
> tag also in patch 1.
Ok, agree that it is good to send whole patchset to net without splitting it.
>
> Net maintainers and Michael might have a different advice.
Ok
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
