From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1756750AbZBWWXQ@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756750AbZBWWXQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:23:16 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753068AbZBWWW5
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:57 -0500
Received: from mail-fx0-f167.google.com ([209.85.220.167]:51618 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f167.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753024AbZBWWW4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:56 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=vEQLGG0yYRyqn+jsdpL/4m71EfhI44Jc5jzJJuPsV65571l9FpWTq8S5Qdzzhmsemn
         MpfjbfvWEDZbQT98SpyKQp6c3hNA4ksNlqV7cBRPHrKcD8FmSmM3XTJIujYnJlh0uAah
         HLztd9YUaonIDIXQnli9lF3l/dScNREHRprNA=
Message-ID: <49A321BA.2040500@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:22:50 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090218 SUSE/3.0b2-1.1 Thunderbird/3.0b2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com>
CC: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@yahoo.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net,
       Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>,
       "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
Subject: Re: [TIP] BUG kmalloc-4096: Poison overwritten (ath5k_rx_skb_alloc)
References: <20090222111807.GB5538@silver.sucs.org> <49A13E91.1090601@gmail.com> <20090222122036.GC5538@silver.sucs.org> <20090222144742.GA6078@nowhere> <20090222170201.GA27360@silver.sucs.org> <49A1CA01.9030501@gmail.com> <49A1DDD2.7040706@gmail.com> <20090223152724.M82409@bobcopeland.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090223152724.M82409@bobcopeland.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 23.2.2009 16:35, Bob Copeland wrote:
> As I understand it, yes, we don't do the right thing when the more flag
> is set.  We're supposed to keep processing packets until we get one with
> the done flag, and then all of that is supposed to be merged into a single
> packet.  Other flags such as the rx rate are only valid on the final
> packet.

What I don't understand is how we can proceed further, if we should 
never get done flag set according to the specs for the buffer which has 
more flag set. We should hit (unlikely(ret == -EINPROGRESS)) test everytime.

> So I am not sure if the jumbo packets are causing bad things to happen,
> or if they are an indication that something bad has already happened.

I don't know, it was just an idea. I tried to lower rxbufsize to 1000 
and see no problems so far (except unsupported jumbo warnings and packet 
loss indeed).