Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:43:36 -0500 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.10 462/717] ice, xsk: clear the status bits for the next_to_use descriptor |
| |
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 02:51:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:29:07 -0500 Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:54:23AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> >On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:47:40 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com> >> >> >> >> [ Upstream commit 8d14768a7972b92c73259f0c9c45b969d85e3a60 ] >> >> >> >> On the Rx side, the next_to_use index points to the next item in the >> >> HW ring to be refilled/allocated, and next_to_clean points to the next >> >> item to potentially be processed. >> >> >> >> When the HW Rx ring is fully refilled, i.e. no packets has been >> >> processed, the next_to_use will be next_to_clean - 1. When the ring is >> >> fully processed next_to_clean will be equal to next_to_use. The latter >> >> case is where a bug is triggered. >> >> >> >> If the next_to_use bits are not cleared, and the "fully processed" >> >> state is entered, a stale descriptor can be processed. >> >> >> >> The skb-path correctly clear the status bit for the next_to_use >> >> descriptor, but the AF_XDP zero-copy path did not do that. >> >> >> >> This change adds the status bits clearing of the next_to_use >> >> descriptor. >> >> >> >> Fixes: 2d4238f55697 ("ice: Add support for AF_XDP") >> >> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> >> > >> >Oh wow, so much for Sasha waiting longer for code to get tested before >> >auto-pulling things into stable :/ >> >> The timeline is usually for a commit to appear in a release, and it did. >> Was it too early? > >Hm, I'm not sure of exact semantics but I meant a final release, >not an -rc. > >Plus I thought the point of things being part of a release is that >people actually get a chance to test that release. -rc1 was cut 24 >hours ago. I guess a "release" is used as a yardstick here, to >measure time, not for practical reasons?
Note that it wasn't actually released yet, at this point folks are supposed to be testing 5.10.4-rc1 to make sure that those patches are okay.
I still think that there are no significant users of Linus's tree, so the idea of having a patch "in a release" doesn't mean as much as folks think it does. Sure, we have a lot of folks who test -rc releases, but are you aware of anyone who runs -rc on real world workloads to test it?
>> >I have this change and other changes here queued, but haven't sent the >> >submission yet. >> >> What do you mean with "queued"? Its in Linus's tree for about two weeks >> now. > >Networking maintainers have their own queue for patches that will go to >stable: > >https://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/netdev/stable/?state=*
This part has always been tricky to me: some parts of net/ and drivers/net/ don't go through netdev, and some do. I have a filter to ignore net/ completely, but I found that quite a lot of drivers/net/ wasn't covered by this process.
How could I blacklist/ignore the parts of the tree you're looking at?
Also, is drivers/net/ stuff covered as well as net/? I found in the past that it's not the case when I was looking at missing patches for the hyper-v driver.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |