Re: [PATCH] UML - Correctly handle skb allocation failures

[Jeff Dike]

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 irqsave/irqrestore to the locking - keep this patch, and I'll
send in a fix.

				Jeff

-- 
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/