From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44D93BB3.5070507@google.com> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:34:43 -0700 From: Daniel Phillips MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core References: <20060808193325.1396.58813.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060808193345.1396.16773.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060808211731.GR14627@postel.suug.ch> In-Reply-To: <20060808211731.GR14627@postel.suug.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Thomas Graf Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thomas Graf wrote: > skb->dev is not guaranteed to still point to the "allocating" device > once the skb is freed again so reserve/unreserve isn't symmetric. > You'd need skb->alloc_dev or something. Can you please characterize the conditions under which skb->dev changes after the alloc? Are there writings on this subtlety? Regards, Daniel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org