> 2) I still do not understand this. Quote from the definition
> of dev_kfree_skb_irq -
>
> /* Use this variant when it is known for sure that it
> * is executing from interrupt context.
> */
Should this comment should be ammended to include the interrupt
disabled case?
Graham
-
To unsubscrib
On 17/01/06, John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:33:27AM +1030, Graham Gower wrote:
> > On 03/01/06, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Graham Gower wrote:
> > > > My logs were starting to fill
On 03/01/06, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Gower wrote:
> > My logs were starting to fill with messages exatcly like that mentioned
> > here:
> > http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=2840
> >
> > In any event, the
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
On 03/01/06, Roger While <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What makes you think this is in IRQ context ?
>
Er... yeah. I must have been off my nut when I wrote that comment.
A more apt comment should perhaps have been "dev_kfree_skb shouldn'
dev_kfree_skb shouldn't be used in an IRQ context.
Signed-off-by: Graham Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux/drivers/net/wireless/prism54/islpci_eth.c.orig
+++ linux/drivers/net/wireless/prism54/islpci_eth.c
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
#endif
newskb->
