From: Hideo AOKI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:51:44 -0500
> To consolidate memory accounting functions, this patch adds memory > accounting calls to network core functions. Moreover, present > memory accounting call is renamed to new accounting call. > > Cc: Satoshi Oshima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > signed-off-by: Takahiro Yasui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > signed-off-by: Hideo Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This patch would not apply, because is contained changes present in the first patch, specifically: > diff -pruN net-2.6.25-t12t19m-p1/include/net/sock.h > net-2.6.25-t12t19m-p2/include/net/sock.h > --- net-2.6.25-t12t19m-p1/include/net/sock.h 2007-12-29 20:16:31.000000000 > -0500 > +++ net-2.6.25-t12t19m-p2/include/net/sock.h 2007-12-29 20:28:15.000000000 > -0500 > @@ -1116,7 +1116,7 @@ static inline int skb_copy_to_page(struc > skb->data_len += copy; > skb->truesize += copy; > sk->sk_wmem_queued += copy; > - sk->sk_forward_alloc -= copy; > + sk_mem_charge(sk, copy); > return 0; > } > > @@ -1142,6 +1142,7 @@ static inline void skb_set_owner_r(struc > skb->sk = sk; > skb->destructor = sock_rfree; > atomic_add(skb->truesize, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc); > + sk_mem_charge(sk, skb->truesize); > } > > extern void sk_reset_timer(struct sock *sk, struct timer_list* timer, And now I see exactly what you did, and it is quite careless. You wrote one big patch then tried to split it up by hand. This proves to me that you did not test the patches individually. Even worse, you did not even try to apply each patch nor compile the tree each step along the way as a basic sanity check. This wastes a lot of my time, as well as the time of other developers who might want to try out and test your changes. I will fix it up this time, but please do not ever do this again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
