[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220818093224.2539d0bc@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:32:24 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...tuozzo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] net: neigh: use dev_kfree_skb_irq instead of
kfree_skb()
Please put [PATCH net] as the tag for v2, this is a fix, not -next
material.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:00:13 +0200 Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> unsigned long flags;
> struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct sk_buff_head tmp;
reverse xmas tree, so tmp should be declared before the shorter lines
> + skb_queue_head_init(&tmp);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&list->lock, flags);
> skb = skb_peek(list);
> @@ -318,12 +321,16 @@ static void pneigh_queue_purge(struct sk_buff_head
> *list, struct net *net)
> struct sk_buff *skb_next = skb_peek_next(skb, list);
while at it let's add an empty line here
> if (net == NULL || net == dev_net(skb->dev)) {
> __skb_unlink(skb, list);
> - dev_put(skb->dev);
> - kfree_skb(skb);
> + __skb_queue_tail(&tmp, skb);
> }
> skb = skb_next;
> } while (skb != NULL);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&list->lock, flags);
> +
> + while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&tmp)) != NULL) {
No need to compare pointers to NULL
> + dev_put(skb->dev);
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists