On 2016年07月12日 05:01, David Miller wrote:
The code is correct and optimal as-is. There is no gain to your
changes. gfp_any() will do the right thing.
In fact, your change makes the code more error prone because if any
of these code paths get moved into an atomic context they will break
unless
From: Masashi Honma
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:59:04 +0900
> This commit extends rtnl_unicast() to specify GFP flags.
>
> This commit depends on Eric Dumazet's commits below.
> ipv4: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet_netconf_notify_devconf()
> ipv6: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet6_netc
This commit extends rtnl_unicast() to specify GFP flags.
This commit depends on Eric Dumazet's commits below.
ipv4: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet_netconf_notify_devconf()
ipv6: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet6_netconf_notify_devconf()
Signed-off-by: Masashi Honma
---
include/l
