[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJht_EN-Ko9qZDzGsQu_S5sDxUSbddwGzi3NC+m-A55tp0EaMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:25:23 -0700
From: Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [net v3] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Use needed_headroom instead
of hard_header_len
Thanks!
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:50 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It's [PATCH net v3], not [net v3]
Sorry. My mistake. I'll pay attention next time.
I'm currently thinking about changing the subject to reflect that we
added a "skb->len" check. Should I number the new patch as v1 or
continue to number it as v4?
> > + if (skb->len < 1)
> > + goto drop;
> > +
>
> Might be worth a comment along the lines of: /* upper layers pass a
> control byte. must validate pf_packet input */
OK. I'll add the comment before it to make its meaning clearer.
> > + dev->hard_header_len = 0;
>
> Technically not needed. The struct is allocated with kvzalloc, z for
> __GFP_ZERO. Fine to leave if intended as self-describing comment, of
> course.
Thanks for pointing out! I think I can leave it as a self-describing comment.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists