From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Huang Subject: Re: LRO restructuring? Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20090219135358.GA11319@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:44751 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753337AbZBSWVH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:21:07 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LaHGQ-0006sc-0h for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:21:02 +0000 Received: from 66.151.55.131 ([66.151.55.131]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:21:02 +0000 Received: from jamesclhuang by 66.151.55.131 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:21:02 +0000 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi all, One question about inet_lro.c (linux 2.6.28.6) In lro_proc_segment(), it does not check the number of available frags entries in lro_desc->parent against the number of new fragments to be added before calling lro_add_frags(). Is that a bug? I see that lro_proc_segment() does some type of checking at the end, but could that be too late (i.e. overflow the frags[])?? Also I think some obvious optimization in lro_get_desc() can be done by combining the two for loops into one. -- James Huang