DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
	Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
	Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <yux.jiang@intel.com>,
	Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
	Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix segmentation offload buffer size
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:48:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <72602dd6-b020-13cd-df70-13a06a57d9a7@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a553de45-7811-5dc7-7c8e-c7b21cedd4d5@intel.com>

On 2/15/2022 12:44 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 12:30 PM, Nicolau, Radu wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/2022 11:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2022 10:47 AM, Nicolau, Radu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:06 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:09 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>>> This reverts commit ff8b8bcd2ebe, which resulted in incorrect buffer size
>>>>>> being computed for TSO packets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: ff8b8bcd2ebe ("net/iavf: fix segmentation offload condition")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Commit 'ff8b8bcd2ebe' was already fixing segmentation offload,
>>>>> are we having the initial issue back when this patch reverted?
>>>>> Is there a fix for that initial issue?
>>>> The initial issue was around a very specific usecase - IPsec transport mode TSO and it is very likely back with this revert. But it's a much less severe impact than general traffic TSO.
>>>
>>> Got it, so this revert brings back an issue, should
>>> we document this in the commit log of this patch?
>>> Plus should we create a Bugzilla etc to record the
>>> introduced issue?
>>
>> I plan to follow up with a fix shortly.
>>

Or does it make sense to combine that fix with this patch?

>> As for the commit message, since this was not merged to the LTS and main, do we really need it?
>>
> 
> Not for the LTS but for main repo. We know merging this patch
> will introduce an previous issue back but that is not obvious
> from the commit log.
> 
> I think it helps to document, in commit log, what issue this
> commit brings.


  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-15 12:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-10 13:09 Radu Nicolau
2022-02-15  6:16 ` Huang, ZhiminX
2022-02-15  7:59   ` Zhang, Qi Z
2022-02-15 10:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-15 10:46   ` Kevin Traynor
2022-02-15 11:25     ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-15 10:47   ` Nicolau, Radu
2022-02-15 11:19     ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-15 12:30       ` Nicolau, Radu
2022-02-15 12:44         ` Ferruh Yigit
2022-02-15 12:48           ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2022-02-15 15:52             ` Nicolau, Radu
2022-02-15 15:50 ` [PATCH v2] " Radu Nicolau
2022-02-20  5:35   ` Zhang, Qi Z

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=72602dd6-b020-13cd-df70-13a06a57d9a7@intel.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
    --cc=yux.jiang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).