[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF2E4B9.4040504@monstr.eu>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:05:13 +0100
From: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, john.williams@...alogix.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ICMP packets - ll_temac with Microblaze
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 décembre 2011 à 08:49 +0100, Michal Simek a écrit :
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:11:44 +0100
>>>
>>>> [PATCH net-next] net: relax rcvbuf limits
>>>>
>>>> skb->truesize might be big even for a small packet.
>>>>
>>>> Its even bigger after commit 87fb4b7b533 (net: more accurate skb
>>>> truesize) and big MTU.
>>>>
>>>> We should allow queueing at least one packet per receiver, even with a
>>>> low RCVBUF setting.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>>> Applied to net-next, although I was tempted to put it into net.
>>>
>>> We may end up backporting this into -stable at some point, we'll
>>> see.
>> Yes, it works. Thanks Eric.
>>
>> I hope that this patch will be in v3.2.
>>
>
> Thanks for testing !
>
> I overlooked fact that commit 87fb4b7b533 was already in 3.2, so yes, we
> probably can push this to 3.2
great.
> (By the way, busybox ping probably doesnt work on 3.1 kernel with a
> MTU=9000 non copybreak driver, so its not a clear 3.2 regression)
good to know.
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists