| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22 |
| From: | Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:43:48 +0200 |
| 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: | <20031010060050.057aab50.davem@redhat.com> |
| References: | <1065617075.1514.29.camel@localhost> <200310101453.44353.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> <20031010060050.057aab50.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.5.4 |
On Friday 10 October 2003 15:00, David S. Miller wrote: > Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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(). And it wouldn't warn about passing NULL to these functions? That's bad... But maybe sparse/smatch are better for this... |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFT] Re: Fw: Nasty Oops in 2.6.0-test6 bind/SO_REUSEADDR, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Dan Kegel |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Dan Kegel |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |