RE: [PATCH v2] net: Remove low_thresh in ip defrag

[Angus Chen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4:13 PM
> To: Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx;
> kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Remove low_thresh in ip defrag
> 
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:06:45PM +0000, Angus Chen wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 7:03 PM
> > > To: Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Remove low_thresh in ip defrag
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 09:01:52AM +0800, Angus Chen wrote:
> > > > As low_thresh has no work in fragment reassembles,del it.
> > > > And Mark it deprecated in sysctl Document.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Getting the following traces with this patch when creating a netns:
> > Sorry for test miss because I tested it in card and didn't test it with multi net.
> > Should I create a pernet struct for it?
> > It may looks too complicated.
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand the motivation behind this patch. IIUC, the
> sysctl is deprecated and has no use in the kernel, yet it cannot be
> removed because user space may rely on it being present. If so, what is
> the significance of the code changes in this patch? Why not just update
> the documentation?
Thank you .
One tester asked me why low_thresh is not work well in our product,
So I want to send a little patch to mark the code.
I will just modify low_thresh to low_thresh_unused to simplify this cleanup.