+ skb_over_panic(skb, len, &&here);
+ skb_under_panic(skb, len, &&here);
Where the function is:
+void skb_over_panic(struct sk_buff *skb, int sz, void *here)
Also, shouldn't this one be "skput:under:" ?
+void skb_under_panic(struct sk_buff *skb, int sz, void *here)
+{
+ panic("skput:over: %p:%d put:%d dev:%s",
+ here, skb->len, sz, skb->dev ? skb->dev->name : "<NULL>");
+}
drivers/net/eepro100.c: 2.1.112 reverted the capabilities change.
case SIOCDEVPRIVATE+2: /* Write the specified MII register */
- if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+ if (!suser())
include/linux/smp_lock.h: extra code?
+extern __inline__ void lock_kernel(void)
+{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ int lock_depth;
+
+ lock_depth = tsk->lock_depth;
+ tsk->lock_depth = lock_depth+1;
+ if (lock_depth)
+ spin_lock(&kernel_flag);
+}
I assume that isn't simply "if (tsk->lock_depth++)" due to GCC behavior?
+extern __inline__ void unlock_kernel(void)
+{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ int lock_depth;
+
+ lock_depth = tsk->lock_depth-1;
+ tsk->lock_depth = lock_depth;
+ if (!lock_depth)
+ spin_unlock(&kernel_flag);
+}
And here, not simply "if (tsk->lock_depth-- == 0)" for the same reason?
-George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html