From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759324AbXGXTbm (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:31:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752994AbXGXTba (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:31:30 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:50634 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbXGXTb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:31:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:30:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: Marcin ??lusarz , Jarek Poplawski , Jean-Baptiste Vignaud , linux-kernel , shemminger , linux-net , netdev , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time In-Reply-To: <20070724094202.GA11610@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20070629150759.GC2771@ff.dom.local> <4bacf17f0707222244p664e7a6ap850b3357a57d73c@mail.gmail.com> <20070724080534.GC18740@elte.hu> <20070724094202.GA11610@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > please try the patch below instead. I'm hoping this is just a "let's see if the behavior changes" patch, not something that you think should be applied if it fixes something? This patch looks like it is trying to paper over (rather than fix) some possible bug in the "->disable" logic. Makes sense as a "let's see if it's that" kind of thing, but not as a "let's fix it". Or am I missing something? Linus