Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mana: Add support to process throttled EQEs

[Sahil Chandna]

On 08-10-2026 14:09, netdev-bot+sinfo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
> commit messages seem to be missing some information:
> 
>  - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
>    development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
>    analysis tool scan.
> 
This issue was discovered internally>  - Whether the issue was actually
triggered, or is only theoretical
>    (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
>    the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.
> 
Logs:
2026-10-03T05:29:01 hv_netvsc eth0: VF slot 0 removed
2026-10-03T05:29:23 mana 7870:00:00.0 ens1: NETDEV WATCHDOG: CPU: 45:
                    transmit queue 1 timed out 15133 ms
2026-10-03T05:31:05 mana 7870:00:00.0: HWC: Request timed out: 60000 ms
2026-10-03T05:31:05 mana 7870:00:00.0: Gf stats wk handler: gf stats
query timed out.
2026-10-03T05:31:21 ens1: NETDEV WATCHDOG: CPU: 20: transmit queue 0
timed out 15859 ms
2026-10-03T05:31:37 ens1: NETDEV WATCHDOG: CPU: 15: transmit queue 0
timed out 31731 ms
2026-10-03T05:31:53 ens1: NETDEV WATCHDOG: CPU: 21: transmit queue 0
timed out 47603 ms
2026-10-03T05:32:08 ens1: NETDEV WATCHDOG: CPU: 42: transmit queue 0
timed out 62451 ms
>  - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
>    mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
>    testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.
> 
This was tested on azure arm64 VMs while running Virtual Client
(https://github.com/microsoft/VirtualClient) with busy poll enabled.>
Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
> reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
> can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
> other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
> then.
> 
> The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
> that is the case please reply and explain.
This is a feature being enabled to handle a new EQE type 4 hence chose
to send it to net-next