From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joao Pinto Subject: Re: [v2,net-next,1/3] net: stmmac: enable multiple buffers Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:19:00 +0000 Message-ID: <9dfc9239-4146-3b4e-a2b1-f82cdff2b78e@synopsys.com> References: <748685e5-86f8-5f6b-66db-04ec96af4bd6@synopsys.com> <20170324.101734.2195203757001166516.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: , , , , , To: David Miller , Return-path: Received: from us01smtprelay-2.synopsys.com ([198.182.47.9]:48817 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966918AbdCXRTW (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:19:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170324.101734.2195203757001166516.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ās 5:17 PM de 3/24/2017, David Miller escreveu: > From: Joao Pinto > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:02:27 +0000 > >> Yes, I agree, it is better to revert and leave the tree functional for all. >> >> @David Miller: >> The multiple-buffer patch introduced some problems in some setups that are being >> hard to debug, so Corentin gave the idea of reverting the until >> commit 7bac4e1ec3ca2342929a39638d615c6b672c27a0 (net: stmmac: stmmac interrupt >> treatment prepared for multiple queues), which I fully agree. >> >> In my setup is ok, but the idea is to have everyone's setup working :), so lets >> break them into smaller pieces, and let's only apply them when everyone confirms >> that is working ok in your setups, agree? >> >> What is the typical mechanism for this? I send a patch reverting them? > > If you can compose a single "git revert" command to achieve this, just > tell me what it is and I'll do it. > > Otherwise send a patch that does the revert. Ok, I sent 2 patches with fixes. Let's see if you get some happy clients. If not, I will inform the commit id to revert. Thanks David. > > Thanks. >