From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:30:55 +0200
> Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
> when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
> dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
> the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
>
> Jason Wang noticed that
From: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:30:55 +0200
Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
Jason Wang noticed
On 11/28/2013 07:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
> when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
> dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
> the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
>
> Jason Wang noticed that we also leak a page
On 11/28/2013 07:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
Jason Wang noticed that we also leak a page and
Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
Jason Wang noticed that we also leak a page and that we don't decrement
the rq buf count, so we won't
Eric Dumazet noticed that if we encounter an error
when processing a mergeable buffer, we don't
dequeue all of the buffers from this packet,
the result is almost sure to be loss of networking.
Jason Wang noticed that we also leak a page and that we don't decrement
the rq buf count, so we won't
6 matches
Mail list logo
