[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120208.180917.586628615268005115.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:09:17 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: or.gerlitz@...il.com
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
sean.hefty@...el.com, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, shlomop@...lanox.com,
roland@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] gro: more generic L2 header check
From: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:49:43 +0200
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
>
>>> Hi Dave, for correct operation / future bisection, you should 1st
>>> apply Roland's patch which reduces the hard header len advertized by
>>> ipoib to be only the size of the ipoib header without that 20 bytes
>>> headroom, else the gro memcmp will be issued on the ipoib header and
>>> then 20 bytes of the ip header, kind of back to square one...
>
>> I did.
>
> Yep, I missed your earlier response to Roland's patch. So a question
> here, how would you recommend to get that out... since the fix for the
> problem includes two patches to core networking and one patch to
> ipoib, we can't just ship a patch to ipoib which people can apply
> build against their kernels. You've placed this work in net-next and
> not net, so I assume we should wait for 3.4-rc1 and then push to
> -stable? any other method to use here that you can recommend? thanks,
I don't think this is an appropriate bug fix at all.
Apparently this problem has existed since day one and the world has
kept on spinning meanwhile.
--
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