[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSdBNn218kuswND5OE4vZ4mxz3_hTDkcRmZn2Z9-gaYQZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:31:43 +0200
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Xie He <xie.he.0141@...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>,
Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Added needed_tailroom
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 7:12 PM Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 1:48 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does this solve an actual observed bug?
> >
> > In many ways lapbeth is similar to tunnel devices. This is not common.
>
> Thank you for your comment!
>
> This doesn't solve a bug observed by me. But I think this should be
> necessary considering the logic of the code.
>
> Using "grep", I found that there were indeed Ethernet drivers that set
> needed_tailroom. I found it was set in these files:
> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet.c
> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
> Setting needed_tailroom may be necessary for this driver to run those
> Ethernet devices.
What happens when a tunnel device passes a packet to these devices?
That will also not have allocated the extra tailroom. Does that cause
a bug?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists