| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch] bug prematurely setting nr_frags |
| From: | Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:07:44 -0400 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200208112107.BAA16136@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:07:33AM +0400 |
| References: | <20020809161439.E10640@xxxxxxxxxx> <200208112107.BAA16136@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:07:33AM +0400, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > that comes from an uninitialized fragment entry in an skb, and this problem
> > looks like a possible causes.
>
> This function is not used, by the way.
Huh? It's called from sock_alloc_send_skb, which is called from all
over the stack.
-ben
--
"You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier."
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: raw ipv6 broken in 2.4.19, Martin Josefsson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] connect() return value., Geoffrey Lee |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch] bug prematurely setting nr_frags, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch] bug prematurely setting nr_frags, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |