> 2) I still do not understand this. Quote from the definition
> of dev_kfree_skb_irq -
>
> /* Use this variant when it is known for sure that it
> * is executing from interrupt context.
> */
Should this comment should be ammended to include the interrupt
disabled case?
Graham
-
To unsubscrib
John W. Linville wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:46:36AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
According to Patrick McHardy, the other dev_kfree_skb change is no
longer required. Perhaps Patrick will comment?
The second dev_kfree_skb is outside the interrupt-disabled
section, so using dev_kfree_sk
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:46:36AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:17:55PM +0100, Roger While wrote:
> >
> >>I am going to NACK this.
> >>Two reasons :
> >>1) Unless we are patching different trees, it appears
> >>the dev_kfree_skb at label drop
John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:17:55PM +0100, Roger While wrote:
I am going to NACK this.
Two reasons :
1) Unless we are patching different trees, it appears
the dev_kfree_skb at label drop_free got missed.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=113629395408219&w=
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:17:55PM +0100, Roger While wrote:
> I am going to NACK this.
> Two reasons :
> 1) Unless we are patching different trees, it appears
> the dev_kfree_skb at label drop_free got missed.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=113629395408219&w=2
According to Patric
I am going to NACK this.
Two reasons :
1) Unless we are patching different trees, it appears
the dev_kfree_skb at label drop_free got missed.
2) I still do not understand this. Quote from the definition
of dev_kfree_skb_irq -
/* Use this variant when it is known for sure that it
* is executing f
On 17/01/06, John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:33:27AM +1030, Graham Gower wrote:
> > On 03/01/06, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Graham Gower wrote:
> > > > My logs were starting to fill with messages exatcly like that mentioned
> > > > her
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:33:27AM +1030, Graham Gower wrote:
> On 03/01/06, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Graham Gower wrote:
> > > My logs were starting to fill with messages exatcly like that mentioned
> > > here:
> > > http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id
On 03/01/06, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Gower wrote:
> > My logs were starting to fill with messages exatcly like that mentioned
> > here:
> > http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=2840
> >
> > In any event, the patch at the end of that link was never
Graham Gower wrote:
My logs were starting to fill with messages exatcly like that mentioned here:
http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=2840
In any event, the patch at the end of that link was never applied (it doesn't
fix the other call to dev_kfree_skb). After applying my
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
On 03/01/06, Roger While <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What makes you think this is in IRQ context ?
>
Er... yeah. I must have been off my nut when I wrote that comment.
A more apt comment should perhaps have been "dev_kfree_skb shouldn'
dev_kfree_skb shouldn't be used in an IRQ context.
Signed-off-by: Graham Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux/drivers/net/wireless/prism54/islpci_eth.c.orig
+++ linux/drivers/net/wireless/prism54/islpci_eth.c
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
#endif
newskb->dev = skb->dev;
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
