netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] Convert bonding timers to workqueues

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: <170fa0d20710220755w744e8ec8w1d85cae4f4be822e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:55:17 -0400
From:	"Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
To:	"Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Cc:	"Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Convert bonding timers to workqueues

On 10/15/07, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com> wrote:
>
> >Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >>      Convert bonding timers to workqueues.  This converts the various
> >> monitor functions to run in periodic work queues instead of timers.  This
> >> patch introduces the framework and convers the calls, but does not resolve
> >> various locking issues, and does not stand alone.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
> >
> >"does not stand alone" == it is not bisectable?  That's a problem.
>
>         The patch will compile fine (this is true for any point in the
> series), but it's possible for bonding to deadlock or misbehave when
> doing certain operations.  Those problems are addressed in the later
> patches.
>
>         I didn't want to just vomit out one big mega-patch that has the
> whole set of changes, because that's harder to understand, and the later
> patches generally address discrete issues.
>
>         Does that make you more or less nervous about its bisectability?
> I can repost the whole thing as a big blob if that's what you'd prefer.
>
> >Anyway, we have more fun fish to fry:  after applying the IPoIB bonding
> >patchset, this no longer applies...
>
>         Yah, I'll rebase it (once I know your blob vs. not-blob
> preference).  I wasn't sure how long the IPoIB mystery bug hunt was
> going to take.

Jeff,

Given that Jay rebased and posted updated bonding locking patches on
Oct 17 will you be pushing them for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1?  or
2.6.24-rcX?  I don't see them queued in your netdev-2.6 tree.  These
bonding locking issues have been a problem for some time and it would
be very good to get them fixed upstream sooner rather than later.

thanks,
Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html