From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] ndisc: Ensure to reserve header space for encapsulation. Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:21:33 -0800 Message-ID: <1356549693.20133.20875.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <50D9BAA4.7000207@linux-ipv6.org> <1356540521.20133.20554.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <50DB4B3D.2050800@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:47310 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752194Ab2LZTVf (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:21:35 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id bh2so5071022pad.33 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:21:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50DB4B3D.2050800@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 04:08 +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > Current code does not make sense, at least. > > Please refer to my previous posting: "[GIT PULL net-next 01/17] > ndisc: Fix size calculation for headers." around Dec/19. > > My previous patch did remove MAX_HEADER from allocation. Yes, but the changelog was misleading, and David misunderstood it. If you really explain why its safe to remove MAX_HEADER, I think your patch would make sense.