[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100718.145120.35845833.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: dipraksh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ossthema@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Badness with the kernel version 2.6.35-rc1-git1 running on P6
box
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:20:42 +0200
> Le vendredi 16 juillet 2010 à 11:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>
>> [PATCH] ehea: ehea_get_stats() should use GFP_KERNEL
>>
>> ehea_get_stats() is called in process context and should use GFP_KERNEL
>> allocation instead of GFP_ATOMIC.
>>
>> Clearing stats at beginning of ehea_get_stats() is racy in case of
>> concurrent stat readers.
>>
>> get_stats() can also use netdev net_device_stats, instead of a private
>> copy.
>>
>> Reported-by: divya <dipraksh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ehea/ehea.h | 1 -
>> drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 6 ++----
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>
> Hmm, net-next-2.6 contains following patch :
If people think ehea usage is ubiquitous enough to deserve a backport
of this to net-2.6, fine. But personally I don't think it's worth it.
Can someone close the kernel bugzilla 16406 created for this bug? This
patch we have already obviously would fix this issue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists