Re: [PATCH/RESEND] drivers/net/ethernet: dev_alloc_skb tonetdev_alloc_skb

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 02:11 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/