On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 01:22 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > This is boring, I reversed everything to not change any semantics and > you still complain. >
You reversed a bug that you had introduced. Do you want me to review this patch or not now? Be a little reasonable please. > * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-06-30 17:35 > > > Grabing a reference is completely pointless, > > > the netdevice represented by skb->iif is at this point until the > > > packet gets queued covered by a reference taken in netif_rx(). > > > > You have to consider that this could happen at both ingress and egress. > > Just think for a second, do you expect the device the packet will > be leaving at to disappear? I am not certain i understood then: Are we in the mode where the refcount is not needed because chances are small that a device will disappear? It seems to me after all this trouble that it may not be so bad to refcount (I guess i meant refcount the device on input to the ifb and decrement on the output). As a note - and i am sure you know this: The packet comes to the ifb and gets queued. It gets dequeued at a later time and is sent off either to the ingress or egress. At any point during the enq/deq the other device being referenced could disappear. This is a lesser sin on ingress than it is on egress. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
