Re: bug in 2.1.89 include/net/sock.h?
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:54:56 -0800 (PST)
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Bill Hawes wrote:
>
> But if you don't update the socket counters for cloned skb's, could you get a
> situation where the counter appears to be back to zero, but there's still a
> clone skb being processed? This could possibly lead to a socket being destroyed
> to early, as the memory counters determine when to delay destruction.
>
> So it seems that a clone skb should be counted for some non-zero amount, if not
> the full data size.
Good point. The use of wmem/rmem as a way of keeping track of all skb's is
probably bogus, but as it is Bill is entirely correct.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu