Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:43:10 -0400 (EDT) | From | George <> | Subject | 2.1.112 oversights? |
| |
include/linux/skbuff.h: Perhaps it was meant just '&' ?
+ skb_over_panic(skb, len, &&here); + skb_under_panic(skb, len, &&here);
Where the function is:
+void skb_over_panic(struct sk_buff *skb, int sz, void *here)
Also, shouldn't this one be "skput:under:" ?
+void skb_under_panic(struct sk_buff *skb, int sz, void *here) +{ + panic("skput:over: %p:%d put:%d dev:%s", + here, skb->len, sz, skb->dev ? skb->dev->name : "<NULL>"); +}
drivers/net/eepro100.c: 2.1.112 reverted the capabilities change.
case SIOCDEVPRIVATE+2: /* Write the specified MII register */ - if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) + if (!suser())
include/linux/smp_lock.h: extra code?
+extern __inline__ void lock_kernel(void) +{ + struct task_struct *tsk = current; + int lock_depth; + + lock_depth = tsk->lock_depth; + tsk->lock_depth = lock_depth+1; + if (lock_depth) + spin_lock(&kernel_flag); +}
I assume that isn't simply "if (tsk->lock_depth++)" due to GCC behavior?
+extern __inline__ void unlock_kernel(void) +{ + struct task_struct *tsk = current; + int lock_depth; + + lock_depth = tsk->lock_depth-1; + tsk->lock_depth = lock_depth; + if (!lock_depth) + spin_unlock(&kernel_flag); +}
And here, not simply "if (tsk->lock_depth-- == 0)" for the same reason?
-George
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |