Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753515Ab2FNWaM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:30:12 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:59154 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752666Ab2FNWaJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:30:09 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: MQUD/KE8JK5XrXCKWlVRraxwfydkWdtTmkNc22I3RjrJ 1339713008 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:30:07 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Roman Kagan 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" Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: save skb counts in TX to avoid cache misses Message-ID: <20120614223007.GD8006@kroah.com> References: <4FD11F49.5060805@gmail.com> <20120607.144358.1732928576389957779.davem@davemloft.net> <20120608021542.GA10112@kroah.com> <1339141042.7850.51.camel@rkaganb.sw.ru> <1339585937.17472.11.camel@rkaganb.sw.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1339585937.17472.11.camel@rkaganb.sw.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1850 Lines: 49 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 03:12:17PM +0400, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:37 +0400, Roman Kagan wrote: > > 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 ;) > > What came out of this discussion? Should I resubmit with a different > subject, or the original one is good enough? > > The patch resolves a real oops; we've seen it multiple times when > running Ubuntu-11.10 in virtual machines. Upstream and RHEL have the > fix since long. Ubuntu is waiting for 3.0-stable to merge it > (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1009545). That's pretty funny that Ubuntu is letting me be the gatekeeper of fixes to get to their customers, there's just so much wrong in that it's sad. Anyway, I've queued it up for the next 3.0-stable release. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/