On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:37:28 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 03:14:34AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 06:00:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 03:48:59 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > @@ -567,6 +591,17 @@ static net
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 03:14:34AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 06:00:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 03:48:59 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > @@ -567,6 +591,17 @@ static netdev_tx_t dsa_slave_xmit(struct sk_buff
> > > *skb, struct net_device
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 06:00:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 03:48:59 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > @@ -567,6 +591,17 @@ static netdev_tx_t dsa_slave_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > struct net_device *dev)
> > */
> > dsa_skb_tx_timestamp(p, skb);
> >
> > + if
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 03:48:59 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> @@ -567,6 +591,17 @@ static netdev_tx_t dsa_slave_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> struct net_device *dev)
>*/
> dsa_skb_tx_timestamp(p, skb);
>
> + if (dsa_realloc_skb(skb, dev)) {
> + kfree_skb(skb);
dev_kfre
On Fri Oct 30 2020, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> At the moment, taggers are left with the task of ensuring that the skb
> headers are writable (which they aren't, if the frames were cloned for
> TX timestamping, for flooding by the bridge, etc), and that there is
> enough space in the skb data area for
At the moment, taggers are left with the task of ensuring that the skb
headers are writable (which they aren't, if the frames were cloned for
TX timestamping, for flooding by the bridge, etc), and that there is
enough space in the skb data area for the DSA tag to be pushed.
Moreover, the life of t
