On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Huajun, > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Huajun Li <huajun.li.lee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Did we on the same page, could you please review my patch again? >> >> My draft patch was based on current mainline( 3.4.0-rc3) which had >> already integrated your previous patch. And in my patch, it replaced >> skb_queue_walk_safe() with skb_queue_walk(), so you will not see 'tmp >> = skb->next' any more. > > Replace skb_queue_walk_safe with skb_queue_walk doesn't improve > the problem, since 'skb = skb->next' in skb_queue_walk still may trigger > the oops, does it? > No. In each loop, my patch traverse the queue from its head, and it always holds q->lock when it need refer "skb->next", this can make sure the right skb is not moved out of rxq/txq. Can this fix what you concern? If so, IMO, there is no need to revert your previous patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
