| To: | Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:00:50 -0700 |
| Cc: | toby@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200310101453.44353.ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1065617075.1514.29.camel@localhost> <3F840C9C.9050704@xxxxxxxxx> <20031008064735.7373227b.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200310101453.44353.ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:53:44 +0200 Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 15:47, David S. Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:09:48 -0400 > > > > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I would prefer that you fix your code instead, to not pass NULL to > > > kfree_skb()... > > > > Absolutely, there is no valid reason to pass NULL into these > > routines. > > Would you mind __attribute_nonnull__ for these functions, if we > enable GCC 3.3 support for this[1]? I would say yes, but why? All this attribute does is optimize away tests for NULL which surprise surprise we don't have any of in kfree_skb(). |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Ingo Oeser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFT] Re: Fw: Nasty Oops in 2.6.0-test6 bind/SO_REUSEADDR, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Ingo Oeser |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Ingo Oeser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |