Re: [ 33/52] net: Fix issue with netdev_tx_reset_queue notresetting queue from XOFF state

[David Miller]

From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:35:49 -0700

> On 05/10/2012 12:46 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> All of the changes in igb are unnecessary.  I think they can be dropped
>>>> from the patch as they have already been reverted from the latest
>>>> net-next.  The only change that is really needed is the piece in
>>>> netdevice.h below.
>>> Does it hurt?  If not, just let it be.
>> Based on the commit description for dad8a3b3eaa0 ("igb, ixgbe:
>> netdev_tx_reset_queue incorrectly called from tx init path"), yes, it
>> hurts.  I don't know if it hurts enough to justify holding up this
>> patch until dad8a3b3eaa0 hits mainline.
>>
>> |                            this sort of works in most cases except
>> | when the number of real tx queues changes. When the number of real
>> | tx queues changes netdev_tx_reset_queue() only gets called on the
>> | new number of queues so when we reduce the number of queues we risk
>> | triggering the watchdog timer and repeated device resets.
>> |
>> | So this is not only a cosmetic issue but causes real bugs. For
>> | example enabling/disabling DCB or FCoE in ixgbe will trigger this.
> I'm fairly certain we really shouldn't make the changes to igb.  I would
> say to just modify the existing patch by just dropping the igb portion
> of it and it would be fine.

Ok, Greg, could you do me a huge favor and simply trim the IGB driver
changes from this patch and just keep the linux/netdevice.h part?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/