On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 08:22 +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
>
> On 2018/4/8 9:08, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 08:54 +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
> > > On 2018/3/31 12:43, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 00:18 -0400, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> > > > > + refcount_inc(&res->atomic.skb->users);
> > > >
> > > > Is this perhaps an open-coded skb_get() call? If so, why isn't skb_get()
> > > > called here?
> > >
> > > Thanks. There are some places that use refcount_inc instead of skb_get.
> > > I will fix it with skb_get later in a patch.
> >
> > That's a weird approach. What prevents you from modifying this patch such
> > that it uses skb_get()?
>
> There are some patches use refcount_inc instead of skb_get. If you
> insist, I will send a new patch soon.
Hello Yanjun,
In case you would not be aware of this: for Linux kernel patches, just like
for patches for any other open source project I am familiar with, it is
expected that reasonable feedback is addressed before a patch goes upstream.
Hence my surprise when you proposed to introduce skb_get() later instead of
making this change before this patch goes upstream.
Thanks,
Bart.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
