netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/14/2005 05:41:02 PM:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:31:38PM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
> > > In fact with your patch we can end up calling
> > > twice. Granted that it is currently harmless but it isn't nice.
> > I don't see this. My original patch only calls
> > ip6_flush_pending_frames() once, since the original code already only
> You called ip6_flush_pending_frames() when rawv6_push_pending_frames
> returned an error. However rawv6_push_pending_frames can return an
> error that was in turn returned by ip6_push_pending_frames.
> As you know ip6_push_pending_frames always frees the cork buffer so
> this is tantamount to calling ip6_flush_pending_frames twice.
I missed that, as you know. :-) You're right, of course. Thanks!
> > I saw that in the code, but I also saw a 2K single skb when
> > MTU is 1500. A piece I looked at appeared to be allocating space for
I tracked this down-- that particular test was running over
loopback, with its larger MTU. So, no prob. here that I know of here,
I've reviewed your patch and looks good to me. I've also
tested it with my test cases for IPV6_CHECKSUM and they work fine.
So, I'm good with your patch.