[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJ=Ad7sVWr3zBmXNSyePJJZaxgnMymN8S7x6fCSvG2jTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:06:09 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: call tcp_drop() in tcp collapse
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:02 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> When this SKB is dropped, we should add the counter sk_drops.
> That could help us better tracking this behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index d51fa35..90f83eb 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -4802,7 +4802,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *tcp_collapse_one(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> else
> rb_erase(&skb->rbnode, root);
>
> - __kfree_skb(skb);
> + tcp_drop(sk, skb);
Absolutely not.
We do not drop the packet, we have simply lowered the memory overhead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists