Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+NETLINK\:\s+Use\s+SKB_MAXORDER\s+to\s+calculate\s+NLMSG

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+NETLINK\:\s+Use\s+SKB_MAXORDER\s+to\s+calculate\s+NLMSG_GOODSIZE\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:54:17 +0100; Dave, did you get this one?; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00199.html (8,821 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:08:00 -0800; Yes I did. I'm just busy with all the memory barrier stuff this past few days, sorry.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00208.html (8,608 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:25:22 -0800; Applied, to 2.4.x and 2.6.x, thanks Thomas. This issue comes up again and again. In the most recent discussion I remember partaking in, I was trying to get it so that all the code paths would calcula; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00225.html (9,210 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:27:12 -0800; Furthermore, it's not sk_buff that's ever the issue. The SKB data area size is where the skb_shared_info gets tacked onto, sk_buff's size is never added to this calculation.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00226.html (9,666 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: d S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:32:39 -0800; I don't understand, if we alloc_skb(copy) we are guarenteed to have "copy" bytes available in the SKB data area. This transformation to SKB_MAX_ORDER() (with the "+ 31" removed as per Alexey's reply); /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00228.html (10,274 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:28:30 +0100; Yes but don't we waste space in the headroom of the new skb iff the headroom of the original skb is no aligned to SKB_DATA_ALIGN? I'll post a new patch without the anyway though.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00236.html (9,943 bytes)
7. 2/2] ray_cs: reduce stack usage (sockaddr) (score: 1): Author: Hernández García-Hierro <lorenzo@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:03:27 +0100; or go up to the latest bk snapshot.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01327.html (8,915 bytes)
8. se SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: enzo@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:22:01 +1100; r address[IW_MAX_SPY]; 16 * 8 = 128; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01328.html (9,777 bytes)
9. Possible race/deadlock in netdev_unregister (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:40:22 +0100; _info is bigger. So it might even end up being bigger :) Are we ever going use NLMSG_GOODORDER for anything? If not wh; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01330.html (10,172 bytes)
10. se SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:48:28 +0300; notifier handler calling rtnl_lock?; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01331.html (10,022 bytes)
11. se SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:21:28 +0100; point. We need to take SMP_CACHE_BY; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01332.html (10,649 bytes)
12. Possible race/deadlock in netdev_unregister (score: 1): Author: ger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:27:01 +0100; nment though. Can someone enlighten; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01334.html (9,758 bytes)
13. frm4_bundle_ok/xfrm6_bundle_ok/stale_bundle (score: 1): Author: n@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:47:21 +0100; ndor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01344.html (8,677 bytes)
14. e_ok/stale_bundle (score: 1): Author: ert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:40:36 +0300; some fuzz.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01347.html (9,631 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:54:17 +0100; Dave, did you get this one?; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01219.html (8,937 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:08:00 -0800; Yes I did. I'm just busy with all the memory barrier stuff this past few days, sorry.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01228.html (8,726 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:25:22 -0800; Applied, to 2.4.x and 2.6.x, thanks Thomas. This issue comes up again and again. In the most recent discussion I remember partaking in, I was trying to get it so that all the code paths would calcula; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01245.html (9,326 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:27:12 -0800; Furthermore, it's not sk_buff that's ever the issue. The SKB data area size is where the skb_shared_info gets tacked onto, sk_buff's size is never added to this calculation.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01246.html (9,893 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:32:39 -0800; I don't understand, if we alloc_skb(copy) we are guarenteed to have "copy" bytes available in the SKB data area. This transformation to SKB_MAX_ORDER() (with the "+ 31" removed as per Alexey's reply); /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01248.html (10,617 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] NETLINK: Use SKB_MAXORDER to calculate NLMSG_GOODSIZE (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:28:30 +0100; Yes but don't we waste space in the headroom of the new skb iff the headroom of the original skb is no aligned to SKB_DATA_ALIGN? I'll post a new patch without the anyway though.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01256.html (10,302 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]