On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:02:53 -0700
>
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&netpoll_txq.lock, flags);
> > + for (skb = (struct sk_buff *)netpoll_txq.next;
> > + skb != (struct sk_buff *)&netpoll_txq; skb = next) {
> > + next = skb->next;
> > + if (skb->dev == dev) {
> > + skb_unlink(skb, &netpoll_txq);
> > + kfree_skb(skb);
> > + }
> > }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&netpoll_txq.lock, flags);
>
> IRQ's are disabled, I think we can't call kfree_skb() in such a
> context.
It is save since the skb's only come from this code (no destructors).
>
> That's why zap_completion_queue() has all of these funny
> skb->destructor checks and such, all of this stuff potentially runs in
> IRQ context.
It should use __kfree_skb in the purge routine (like other places).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
