netdev - Re: [v2,net-next,1/3] net: stmmac: enable multiple buffers

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: <20170324.101734.2195203757001166516.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com
Cc:     clabbe.montjoie@...il.com, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        peppe.cavallaro@...com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2,net-next,1/3] net: stmmac: enable multiple buffers

From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:02:27 +0000

> Yes, I agree, it is better to revert and leave the tree functional for all.
> 
> @David Miller:
> The multiple-buffer patch introduced some problems in some setups that are being
> hard to debug, so Corentin gave the idea of reverting the until
> commit 7bac4e1ec3ca2342929a39638d615c6b672c27a0 (net: stmmac: stmmac interrupt
> treatment prepared for multiple queues), which I fully agree.
> 
> In my setup is ok, but the idea is to have everyone's setup working :), so lets
> break them into smaller pieces, and let's only apply them when everyone confirms
> that is working ok in your setups, agree?
> 
> What is the typical mechanism for this? I send a patch reverting them?

If you can compose a single "git revert" command to achieve this, just
tell me what it is and I'll do it.

Otherwise send a patch that does the revert.

Thanks.