From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [Patch net] atm: remove an unnecessary loop Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:36:07 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20170114001422.GA6874@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Michal Hocko , Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, Andrey Konovalov To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f195.google.com ([209.85.220.195]:35051 "EHLO mail-qk0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750809AbdANAg2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:36:28 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-f195.google.com with SMTP id u25so9274071qki.2 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:36:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170114001422.GA6874@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Francois Romieu wrote: > Cong Wang : > [...] >> If you can justify API is not broken by doing that, I am more than happy >> to do it, as I already stated in the latter patch: >> >> "Of course, the logic itself is suspicious, other sendmsg() >> could handle skb allocation failure very well, not sure >> why ATM has to wait for a successful one here. But probably >> it is too late to change since the errno and behavior is >> visible to user-space. So just leave the logic as it is." >> >> For some reason, no one reads that patch. :-/ > > Believe it or not but I actually read it. > > It changes the logic : the original code would have been unable to > escape the while loop on memory failure. Fine, I don't mind the change. > Actually I believe that these two patches are too shy (and backport > unefficient). Instead of trying to reformulate why, here's what I have > in mind. Uncompiled, caveat emptor, etc. I just don't want to break things, that is it. If you can convince me your change will not break any user-space application, again I am more than just happy about it. My ATM knowledge is close to zero. ;)