On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

quoted text
> Hello.
> 
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > My apologies, I mistakenly read the following if statement in your patch:
> > 
> >  +       if (skb == skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
> >  +               __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue);
> >  +               atomic_dec(&skb->users);
> >  +       }
> > 
> > I read the conditional as the following:
> > 
> >  +       if (skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
> > 
> > ... which would have caused the problems I was describing.  I'm sorry for all 
> > of the confusion/frustration, you patient explanations are correct; I was 
> > wrong in this particular case.
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> To everyone:
> 
>   Are there any remaining worries with skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept()?
> 
>   If nobody has objection, I'd like to cut these skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept() changes
>   and submit to -mm tree.

You should send anything which touches core networking to netdev, too, and 
get an ack from one of the core developers there.


-- 
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>

-
unsubscribe notice
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/