Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:11:57PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13.12.2023 18:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:05:44AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin 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/39b2e9fd-601b-189d-39a9-914e5574524c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Patchset:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Arseniy
> >>
> >>
> >> hmm why not net-next?
> > 
> > Oh I missed your previous discussion. I think everything in net-next is
> > safer.  Having said that, I won't nack it net, either.
> 
> So, summarizing all above:
> 1) This patchset entirely goes to net-next as v9
> 2) I reorder patches like 3 - 2 - 1 - 4, e.g. two fixes goes first with Fixes tag
> 3) Add Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> to each patch
> 
> @Michael, @Stefano ?
> 
> Thanks, Arseniy

Fine by me.

> > 
> >>>>
> >>>> So, maybe all the series could be "net".
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Stefano
> >>>>
> >