Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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]

Add to Google Powered by Linux