Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759781Ab2FHHhl (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 03:37:41 -0400 Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:33221 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759212Ab2FHHhj (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 03:37:39 -0400 From: Roman Kagan To: Greg KH CC: David Miller , "jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com" , "tarbal@gmail.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "jesse.brandeburg@intel.com" , "bruce.w.allan@intel.com" , "carolyn.wyborny@intel.com" , "donald.c.skidmore@intel.com" , "gregory.v.rose@intel.com" , "peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com" , "alexander.h.duyck@intel.com" , "john.ronciak@intel.com" , "dnelson@redhat.com" , "e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:37:22 +0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: save skb counts in TX to avoid cache misses Thread-Topic: [PATCH] e1000: save skb counts in TX to avoid cache misses Thread-Index: Ac1FSYz1bbhXFxwpQQmqjHvz/dFCLw== Message-ID: <1339141042.7850.51.camel@rkaganb.sw.ru> References: <4FD11F49.5060805@gmail.com> <20120607.144358.1732928576389957779.davem@davemloft.net> <20120608021542.GA10112@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20120608021542.GA10112@kroah.com> Accept-Language: en-US, ru-RU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, ru-RU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by nfs id q587bkjR024649 Content-Length: 965 Lines: 29 On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 06:15 +0400, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:43:58PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jeff Kirsher > > Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:38:17 -0700 > > > > > Thanks! I have applied the patch to my queue > > > > Why? > > > > My impression is that this is a patch already in the tree, and it's > > being submitted for -stable but such minor performance hacks are > > absolutely not appropriate for -stable submission. > > The patch description says it is fixing reported oopses, Exactly. > but the Subject: isn't all that helpful there. Well I just preserved the original subject from the upstream commit. Want me to resubmit with a more alarming one? > So which is this? Should I accept it for a stable release or not? IMO yes ;) Thanks, Roman. ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?