[Top] [All Lists]

Re: skb_pull, etc. panics.

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: skb_pull, etc. panics.
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:06:19 -0400
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010613222217.48760@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; from ak@xxxxxx on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:22:17PM +0200
References: <20010606141145.L31244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010613032126.B5323@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010613115848.A19894@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010613222217.48760@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:22:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:58:48PM +0200, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > checking for it is considered debugging code and thus, overhead
> > that need not be in a production system?
> In theory yes. It is a good sanity check to stop early when things go 
> wrong though so it is kept.

That's fine for my code that tries to call skb_push/pull directly, but
it doesn't help when other parts of the system call it, assuming
everything is hunky-dory and my code has changed something so that the
assumptions of other parts of the system are no longer true...  It is
rather rude to debug...

> -Andi

        slainte mhath, RGB
Richard Guy Briggs -- PGP key available            Auto-Free Ottawa! Canada
<>                       <>
Prevent Internet Wiretapping!        --        FreeS/WAN:<>
Thanks for voting Green! -- <>      Marillion:<>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>