On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:03:50 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:02:53 -0700 > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&netpoll_txq.lock, flags); > > + for (skb = (struct sk_buff *)netpoll_txq.next; > > + skb != (struct sk_buff *)&netpoll_txq; skb = next) { > > + next = skb->next; > > + if (skb->dev == dev) { > > + skb_unlink(skb, &netpoll_txq); > > + kfree_skb(skb); > > + } > > } > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&netpoll_txq.lock, flags); > > IRQ's are disabled, I think we can't call kfree_skb() in such a > context. It is save since the skb's only come from this code (no destructors). > > That's why zap_completion_queue() has all of these funny > skb->destructor checks and such, all of this stuff potentially runs in > IRQ context. It should use __kfree_skb in the purge routine (like other places). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html