From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753888Ab2AWUrS (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:47:18 -0500 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:57090 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751353Ab2AWUrR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:47:17 -0500 Message-ID: <1327351619.8074.3.camel@joe2Laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RESEND] drivers/net/ethernet: dev_alloc_skb to netdev_alloc_skb From: Joe Perches To: "Pradeep A. Dalvi" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:46:59 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1327343283-4830-1-git-send-email-netdev@pradeepdalvi.com> <1327344034.6317.3.camel@joe2Laptop> <1327348561.7527.0.camel@joe2Laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 02:11 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:49 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 23:58 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote: > >> >> Replaced deprecating dev_alloc_skb with netdev_alloc_skb in drivers/net/ethernet > >> >> - Removed extra skb->dev = dev after netdev_alloc_skb > >> > [] > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/lance.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/lance.c > >> > [] > >> >> @@ -871,13 +871,12 @@ lance_init_ring(struct net_device *dev, gfp_t gfp) > >> >> struct sk_buff *skb; > >> >> void *rx_buff; > >> >> > >> >> - skb = alloc_skb(PKT_BUF_SZ, GFP_DMA | gfp); > >> >> + skb = netdev_alloc_skb(dev, PKT_BUF_SZ); > >> > > >> > This change seems suspect. > >> Not really sure what made you suspect something in here. If you could > >> help me understand possibly broken scenarios, would essentially be > >> helpful. Thanks in advance! > > > > Where did the GFP_DMA go? > > Aah! Is that really needed? Cause from my understanding, priority GFP > flag __GFP_DMA is anyway negated in __alloc_skb, in a way from all > sources i.e. netdev_alloc_skb or dev_alloc_skb or even alloc_skb. Am I > missing something here? It very well may be equivalent behavior. I didn't look and didn't much care. All I saw was an inequivalent transform with no change log describing why the change was warranted. cheers, Joe