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
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:01:26 -0400
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int update_drop_skb(int max)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff *new;
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock(_lock);
> +
> + if (max <= drop_max)
> + goto out;
> +
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + new =
Handle memory allocation failures when reading packets.
We have to read something from the host, even if we can't allocate any
memory. If we don't, the host side of the device may fill up and stop
delivering interrupts because no new packets can be queued.
A single sk_buff is allocated whenever
Handle memory allocation failures when reading packets.
We have to read something from the host, even if we can't allocate any
memory. If we don't, the host side of the device may fill up and stop
delivering interrupts because no new packets can be queued.
A single sk_buff is allocated whenever
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
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:01:26 -0400
Jeff Dike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int update_drop_skb(int max)
+{
+ struct sk_buff *new;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ spin_lock(drop_lock);
+
+ if (max = drop_max)
+ goto out;
+
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ new =
6 matches
Mail list logo
