Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
+ if (skb_tailroom(skb) 4) {
+ int err;
+ err = skb_padto(skb, skb-len + 4);
+ if (unlikely(err || skb_tailroom(skb) 4)) {
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG Failed to increase tailroom
+
(trimmed cc:'s since, IMO, isn't really all that general interest)
Jeff Garzik wrote:
drivers/atm/zatm.c: In function ?zatm_open?:
drivers/atm/zatm.c:919: warning: ?pcr? may be used uninitialized in this
function
Yeah, looks like a bug. Not very high-impact because:
1. it only results in
Jeff Garzik wrote:
1) not safe on 64-bit
Almost certainly correct. Probably never will be -- IIRC this SAR was
mainly used in embedded apps. I don't know if any commercially-available
PCI cards were ever made with it. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile
since I was up on the ATM
chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
still generates a warning from gcc though.
The warning is bogus in this case, though -- the only way for *pcr to
be unset is when alloc_shaper() returns non-zero
+ *pcr = 0;
You're right, 0 is better than ATM_MAX_PCR here.
-Mitch
-
To unsubscribe
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:29:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Shouldn't compiler have gagged on this?
Apparently not. At least the compiler I use doesn't warn about it (gcc
version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)).
Linus, this might be be something for sparse to check:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Once packets classified to be delivered to a specific local host socket,
what further operations are require privs? What received packet data
cannot be exposed to userspace?
You just need to make sure that you don't leak data from other peoples
sockets. Two issues I see:
Alan Cox wrote:
But your user space that would add the routes is not so protected so I'm
not sure this is actually a solution, more of an extended fudge.
Yes, there's no 100% solution -- no matter how much memory you reserve and
how many paths you protect if you try hard enough you can come up
Patrick McHardy wrote:
-static inline const int before48(const u64 seq1, const u64 seq2)
+static inline int before48(const u64 seq1, const u64 seq2)
Perhaps __attribute__ ((const)) is what was meant here?
-Mitch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of
The networking gurus can comment on the internals of your patch better than
I can. Just a few style notes though:
+#ifdef CONFIG_TCP_OFFLOAD
+#define NETIF_F_TCPIP_OFFLOAD65536 /* Can offload TCP/IP */
+#endif
No need to protect this inside CONFIG_* option
+/* TOE API */
+#ifdef
I'm fairly pessimistic about full TOE also, I just want to see the patch
cleaned up a bit so we can see the exact impact it would have. The RX
optimization work presented in the Neterion and Intel papers at OLS sounds a
lot more interesting to me though.
However, I do want to comment on one
10 matches
Mail list logo
