On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:04:34PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > This is, fortunately, generally true. But if the alloc_skb function > > allocates extra head room (ie calls skb_reserve() on the skb before it > > passes it to the callee, this doesn't quite work. Instead, it should be > > rewritten as: > > As far as I know the alloc_skb funciton in the kernel tree doesn't do > that so your patch is not necessary unless we decide to change the way > alloc_skb works. If that's what you want then please provide a patch > to alloc_skb and a rationale as to why we should do that. It does not, and I have no intention of submitting a patch to change it. As I said in my original message, it was a crude hack which has since been relegated to the great bitbucket of the sky. All that's left is that "bugfix" patch. I've performed my due-diligence in airing it to the powers that be, so I'll go way now. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy ICQ: 1318344 Melbourne, FL JID: [email protected] Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Attachment:
pgpvvHk5MG26j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
- From: Stuffed Crust <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
- Prev by Date: Re: [openib-general] Re: [PATCH][RFC][0/4] InfiniBand userspace verbs implementation
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] cpusets+hotplug+preepmt broken
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
- Index(es):
 |