On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Eric, Neil, > > Should not __dev_kfree_skb_any() call kfree_skb() instead of > dev_kfree_skb() which is aliased to consumes_skb() and therefore does > not flag the skb with SKB_REASON_DROPPED? > > If we take the in_irq() || irqs_disabled() branch, we will be calling > __dev_kfree_skb_irq() which takes care of setting the skb_free_reason > frmo the caller. > > Is there an implied semantic with dev_kfree_skb() that it means it was > freed by the network device and therefore this equals to a consumption > (not a drop)? The comment above dev_kfree_skb_any() seems to imply this > should be a context unaware replacement for kfree_skb().
Really the problem here is that we have more than one thousand calls to dev_kfree_skb_any() (compared to ~ 90 calls to dev_consume_skb_any()) So it will be a huge task cleaning all this. (dev_kfree_skb_any() calls were added way before the drop monitor stuff)
