Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:21:32 -0400 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UML - Correctly handle skb allocation failures |
| |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:53:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Still wanna know why it is safe for uml_net_rx to be playing with > drop_skb when update_drop_skb() could be concurrently reallocating > and freeing it.
Ah, yes, I missed that point in the horror of my botch last night.
I'll add irqsave/irqrestore to the locking - keep this patch, and I'll send in a fix.
Jeff
-- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |