From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.206]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCD367A2E for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 57so90069wri for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9b7ca65705041305327bd600f6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:32:25 +0900 From: Daniel Ann To: Daniel Ann , linuxppc-embedded In-Reply-To: <20050413051326.GA12632@gate.ebshome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <9b7ca6570504120138738b554f@mail.gmail.com> <20050412161230.GA18567@gate.ebshome.net> <9b7ca657050412215025872ce3@mail.gmail.com> <20050413051326.GA12632@gate.ebshome.net> Subject: Re: Trying to understand alloc_skb() Reply-To: Daniel Ann List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 4/13/05, Eugene Surovegin wrote: > Then do it. It should be trivial to unwind the stack and much simpler > than moving this code to process context. Actually, Im not too sure what is required to put something in kernel in process context. Maybe its alot harder than I think it is... > I think it's a bad idea. You are trying to workaround a problem > instead of fixing it. My experience shows that sooner or later it'll > come back and hit you anyway :). I'm with you on this. It just that I didnt think putting my code in process context would be regarded as workaround. Since kernel itself ran fine, only after putting in my change it caused problem, I simply thought that putting changes to code that was already there is more severe than making further changes to what I've done. At least this way, change is still within my domain. But again, if putting my function in process context is that hard.. okay I better think otherwise :) --=20 Daniel