From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Subject: __dev_kfree_skb_any() and use of dev_kfree_skb()
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:07:26 -0700
Message-ID: <32568fab-02d4-0484-3237-5d8dc09e273d@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
To: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, edumazet@google.com,
        nhorman@tuxdriver.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ed1-f46.google.com ([209.85.208.46]:38561 "EHLO
        mail-ed1-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726194AbeJCCwn (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 22:52:43 -0400
Received: by mail-ed1-f46.google.com with SMTP id c1-v6so3250702ede.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Eric, Neil,

Should not __dev_kfree_skb_any() call kfree_skb() instead of
dev_kfree_skb() which is aliased to consumes_skb() and therefore does
not flag the skb with SKB_REASON_DROPPED?

If we take the in_irq() || irqs_disabled() branch, we will be calling
__dev_kfree_skb_irq() which takes care of setting the skb_free_reason
frmo the caller.

Is there an implied semantic with dev_kfree_skb() that it means it was
freed by the network device and therefore this equals to a consumption
(not a drop)? The comment above dev_kfree_skb_any() seems to imply this
should be a context unaware replacement for kfree_skb().

Thanks!
-- 
Florian