The official owner is the layer where the skb passes through.
> It seems, we need to be careful if the packet passed multiple netif_rx()
> E.g. if the hdlc device passes the frame upstream by a netif_rx(), devlivers
> it to syncppp_rcv() which finally passes it further upstream by a
> second netif_rx(). Further, if tcp/ip uses the cb field, the cb field
> cannot be used in a symmetrical manner to pass link control information
> downstream to the device.
It is free because TCP is carefull to skb_clone() first.
[This all applies to 2.2, in 2.0 this is not guaranteed]
It doesn't work for multiple netif_rx(), correct, because then you lose
your current layer context.
>
> Would a new packet type like PACKET_CONTROL would be appropriate?
Oh no, please no STREAMS.
> (Anyway, it seems that ppp can get along without as all link state related
> stuff can be entirely hadled by pppd without the need of enhancing
> kernel-internal interfaces).
That sounds good.
-Andi (who still hopes isdn4linux will someday do connection management
in user space)
-- This is like TV. I don't like TV.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/