|
|
Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels? |
On 2012-06-06, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:59:19 +0000 (UTC)
>
>> At the time it was written (probably 10+ years ago) it was relying on
>> the documented API for alloc_skb() that stated alloc_skb() either
>> returned an sk_buff of the requested size or it failed.
>
> It was never a formal API that we would only allocate 'size'
> amount of tailroom.
Well, somebody forgot to tell whoever wrote the man page for
alloc_skb(). :)
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm ZIPPY the PINHEAD
at and I'm totally committed
gmail.com to the festive mode.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Kernel Discussion] [Ethernet Bridging] [Linux Wireless Networking] [Linux Bluetooth Networking] [Linux Networking Users] [VLAN] [Git] [IETF Annouce] [Linux Assembly] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Singles Social Networking] [Yosemite Information] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux Kernel] [ARM Linux] [Linux Virtualization] [Linux Security] [Linux IDE] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Free Dating]
![]() |
![]() |