Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:03:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:03:00 -0500 Received: from [63.205.85.133] ([63.205.85.133]:35079 "EHLO schmee.sfgoth.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:02:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:12:55 -0800 From: Mitchell Blank Jr To: "David S. Miller" Cc: chas williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ATM] who 'owns' the skb created by drivers/atm? Message-ID: <20030220221255.A11525@sfgoth.com> References: <1045808570.22228.2.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <1045808570.22228.2.camel@rth.ninka.net>; from davem@redhat.com on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 10:22:50PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 967 Lines: 23 David S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 17:42, James Morris wrote: > > skb->cb is owned by whatever layer is currently processing the skb. > > Furthermore, once you netif_rx() an SKB it is no longer yours. > It is owned by the networking stack. > > If the ATM layer wants to do fancy things and still pass the SKB > to netif_rx(), _it_ should clone the SKB and give that clone to > the ATM layer directly. As far as I'm aware the ATM layer doesn't care what happens to the SKB after it gets passed to netif_rx(), so I don't know why this would be a problem. Some people seem to be suggesting that we need to zero out ->cb before passing the SKB to netif_rx() but I don't see why that would be neccesary. -Mitch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/