From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262018AbULHEmG (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:42:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262019AbULHEmG (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:42:06 -0500 Received: from znx208-2-156-007.znyx.com ([208.2.156.7]:520 "EHLO lotus.znyx.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262018AbULHEmA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:42:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Reply-To: hadi@znyx.com To: Patrick McHardy Cc: Thomas Graf , Andrew Morton , Thomas Cataldo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <1102480044.1050.9.camel@jzny.localdomain> References: <1102380430.6103.6.camel@buffy> <20041206224441.628e7885.akpm@osdl.org> <1102422544.1088.98.camel@jzny.localdomain> <41B5E188.5050800@trash.net> <20041207170748.GF1371@postel.suug.ch> <41B5E722.2080600@trash.net> <1102480044.1050.9.camel@jzny.localdomain> Organization: ZNYX Networks Message-Id: <1102480913.1049.24.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 07 Dec 2004 23:41:53 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 12/07/2004 08:45:25 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 12/07/2004 08:45:30 PM, Serialize complete at 12/07/2004 08:45:30 PM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org BTW, old kernel in this case implies one that does not support tc actions at all. So pick something like 2.4.28. New is whatever 2.6.x with patch. Old tc is something that for example ships with redhat new tc is whatever one is patched. Supplementary tests are: in 2.6.x to compile the policer in two different ways a) via tc actions and b) using the old scheme which is understood by "old" tc. Repeat the tests i described earlier with b) pretending to be "old" kernel. Infact come to think of it i would also prefer to have the suplementary tests run as well. If you guys have no cycles, please pass the patch to me and i will test on the weekend. cheers, jamal On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 23:27, jamal wrote: > On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 12:23, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > Either one is fine with me, although I would prefer to see > > the number of ifdefs in this area going down, not up :) > > You guys pick one or other or a mix. I run 4 base testcases for the > policer typically: > > 1) Old kernel, uptodate TC - MUST pass > 2) old kernel, old tc (trivial - expected to pass). > 3) New Kernel, uptodate TC - MUST pass > 4) New Kernel, uptodate TC - MUST pass (although trivial) > > Try both setting, dumping then deleting policies. > > If these tests pass, please push patch to Dave. > > cheers, > jamal >