On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 19:04 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> > >
> > > If you prefer to have it
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> >
> > If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> > but I see no profit so far.
>
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
>
> If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> but I see no profit so far.
I was simply curious this was not mentioned in the changelog.
A revert is
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> > defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
> >
> > Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
>
> Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the inet_csk_accept() completely breaks
> memcg socket memory accounting, as packets
