Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:45:33 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@sberdevices.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting
 SO_RCVLOWAT
Message-ID: <gu2yvaqqgrfnffnh67fodsoob4cdpcw4zaifncku3qvadtuq5j@6unpf5ifdmtd>
References: <20231211211658.2904268-1-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231212105423-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <d27f22f0-0f1e-e1bb-5b13-a524dc6e94d7@salutedevices.com>
 <20231212111131-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <7b362aef-6774-0e08-81e9-0a6f7f616290@salutedevices.com>
 <ucmekzurgt3zcaezzdkk6277ukjmwaoy6kdq6tzivbtqd4d32b@izqbcsixgngk>
 <402ea723-d154-45c9-1efe-b0022d9ea95a@salutedevices.com>
 <20231213100518-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20231213100957-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <8e6b06a5-eeb3-84c8-c6df-a8b81b596295@salutedevices.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8e6b06a5-eeb3-84c8-c6df-a8b81b596295@salutedevices.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:11:57PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>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 ?

Okay, let's do that ;-)

Stefano