[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240103060033.GD5160@unreal>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:00:33 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Shachar Kagan <skagan@...dia.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Revert no longer abort SYN_SENT when
receiving some ICMP
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:02:32PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:46:13 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > The issue appears while using Vagrant to manage nested VMs.
> > > The steps are:
> > > * create vagrant file
> > > * vagrant up
> > > * vagrant halt (VM is created but shut down)
> > > * vagrant up - fail
> >
> > I would rather have an explanation, instead of reverting a valid patch.
>
> +1 obviously. Your refusal to debug this any further does not put
> nVidia's TCP / NVMe offload in a good light. On one hand you
> claim to have TCP experts in house and are pushing TCP offloads and
> on the other you can't debug a TCP issue for which you reportedly
> have an easy repro? Does not add up.
Did I claim about TCP experts? No.
Did we cause to Vagrant to stop working? No.
Did we write problematic patch? No.
So let's not ask from the people who by chance tested the code to debug it.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists