chas williams wrote:
> In message <20030220222404.B11525@sfgoth.com>,Mitchell Blank Jr writes:
>>Hmmmm.. I guess we've just been getting lucky before in that case - we've
>>always just left the ATM_SKB() stuff in there.
The "cb must be in virgin state" rule is indeed news to me. But
maybe the rule has always been there, and nobody really noticed :-)
> this is one option. the other would be to clone the skb and pass the
> clone to the ip layer. the last option, and the one i prefer, would
> be to make the atm drivers not modify skb->cb (or reset it) when passing
> up the skb. the atm socket layer doesnt rely on it, and it would keep
> the 'extra' processing to a minimum.
I'm not sure this is the problem: as far as I remember, the ATM stack
doesn't assume that other layers leave skb->cb intact. In fact, it
shouldn't even touch an skb once it has been passed on.
BTW, I'm happy that ATM finally has a maintainer again. Thanks, Chas !
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST