On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > My apologies, I mistakenly read the following if statement in your patch:
> >
> > + if (skb == skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
> > + __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue);
> > + atomic_dec(&skb->users);
> > + }
> >
> > I read the conditional as the following:
> >
> > + if (skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
> >
> > ... which would have caused the problems I was describing. I'm sorry for
> > all
> > of the confusion/frustration, you patient explanations are correct; I was
> > wrong in this particular case.
> No problem.
>
>
>
> To everyone:
>
> Are there any remaining worries with
> skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept()?
>
> If nobody has objection, I'd like to cut these
> skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept() changes
> and submit to -mm tree.
You should send anything which touches core networking to netdev, too, and
get an ack from one of the core developers there.
--
James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
