On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:53:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Still wanna know why it is safe for uml_net_rx to be playing with
> drop_skb when update_drop_skb() could be concurrently reallocating
> and freeing it.
Ah, yes, I missed that point in the horror of my botch last night.
I'll add irq
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:01:26 -0400
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int update_drop_skb(int max)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff *new;
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock(&drop_lock);
> +
> + if (max <= drop_max)
> + goto out;
> +
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + new
I'm trying to enforce the convention that you may not call
dentry_open() with a NULL vfsmount. This is so that the
r/o bind mount patches can consistenty acquire write access
to the mounts there.
This patch fixes up UML's HPPFS to track both the vfsmount
and the dentry for its files. Compile, b
Handle memory allocation failures when reading packets.
We have to read something from the host, even if we can't allocate any
memory. If we don't, the host side of the device may fill up and stop
delivering interrupts because no new packets can be queued.
A single sk_buff is allocated whenever
