On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 14:14 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 14:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 13:55 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 13:53 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > It's 288 bytes on stack, maybe a kzalloc would be clearer too. > > > > > > Could you read patch history and check why this has been rejected ? > > > > I don't see a rejection, just that the initial > > submission didn't check the allocation or add > > an allocation buffer via kcalloc/kzalloc to the > > inet6_fill_ifla6_attrs caller and change the > > snmp6_fill_stats arguments. > > > > It could also eliminate the put_unaligned calls. > > Not really. You do not properly read this code.
Always a possibility, but I don't think so. > put_unaligned is happening on a space allocated from rtnetlink skb, not > the temp space needed to perform the per cpu folding. That's why I suggested changing the snmp_fill_stats arguments. If the naturally aligned allocated u64 array is used and then copied as a block to the rtnetlink skb, I believe there's no alignment issue that would require put_unaligned. Do I still miss something? > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/25/476 I read that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
