Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting SO_RCVLOWAT

[Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>]

On 13.12.2023 18:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:05:44AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:08:27PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13.12.2023 11:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12.12.2023 19:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:59:03PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12.12.2023 18:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:16:54AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                DESCRIPTION
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patchset fixes old problem with hungup of both rx/tx sides and adds
>>>>>>>>> test for it. This happens due to non-default SO_RCVLOWAT value and
>>>>>>>>> deferred credit update in virtio/vsock. Link to previous old patchset:
>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/39b2e9fd-601b-189d-39a9-914e5574524c@sberdevices.ru/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patchset:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I worry whether we actually need 3/8 in net not in net-next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of "Fixes" tag ? I think this problem is not critical and reproducible
>>>>>>> only in special cases, but i'm not familiar with netdev process so good, so I don't
>>>>>>> have strong opinion. I guess @Stefano knows better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Arseniy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes means "if you have that other commit then you need this commit
>>>>>> too". I think as a minimum you need to rearrange patches to make the
>>>>>> fix go in first. We don't want a regression followed by a fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see, ok, @Stefano WDYT? I think rearrange doesn't break anything, because this
>>>>> patch fixes problem that is not related with the new patches from this patchset.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, patch 3 is for sure net material (I'm fine with both rearrangement or send it separately), but IMHO also patch 2 could be.
>>>> I think with the same fixes tag, since before commit b89d882dc9fc ("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages") we sent a credit update
>>>> for every bytes we read, so we should not have this problem, right?
>>>
>>> Agree for 2, so I think I can rearrange: two fixes go first, then current 0001, and then tests. And send it as V9 for 'net' only ?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Arseniy
>>
>>
>> hmm why not net-next?
> 
> Oh I missed your previous discussion. I think everything in net-next is
> safer.  Having said that, I won't nack it net, either.

So, summarizing all above:
1) This patchset entirely goes to net-next as v9
2) I reorder patches like 3 - 2 - 1 - 4, e.g. two fixes goes first with Fixes tag
3) Add Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> to each patch

@Michael, @Stefano ?

Thanks, Arseniy

> 
>>>>
>>>> So, maybe all the series could be "net".
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Stefano
>>>>
>