linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] e1000: save skb counts in TX to avoid cache misses

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1339141042.7850.51.camel@rkaganb.sw.ru>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:37:22 +0400
From:	Roman Kagan <rkagan@...allels.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"tarbal@...il.com" <tarbal@...il.com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jesse.brandeburg@...el.com" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"bruce.w.allan@...el.com" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	"carolyn.wyborny@...el.com" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	"donald.c.skidmore@...el.com" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	"gregory.v.rose@...el.com" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	"peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"alexander.h.duyck@...el.com" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	"john.ronciak@...el.com" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"dnelson@...hat.com" <dnelson@...hat.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: save skb counts in TX to avoid cache misses

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 06:15 +0400, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:43:58PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jeff Kirsher <tarbal@...il.com>
> > Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:38:17 -0700
> > 
> > > Thanks! I have applied the patch to my queue
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > My impression is that this is a patch already in the tree, and it's
> > being submitted for -stable but such minor performance hacks are
> > absolutely not appropriate for -stable submission.
> 
> The patch description says it is fixing reported oopses,

Exactly.

> but the Subject: isn't all that helpful there.

Well I just preserved the original subject from the upstream commit.
Want me to resubmit with a more alarming one?

> So which is this?  Should I accept it for a stable release or not?

IMO yes ;)

Thanks,
Roman.