+ */
+void rmnet_egress_handler(struct sk_buff *skb,
+ struct rmnet_logical_ep_conf_s *ep)
+{
+ struct rmnet_phys_ep_conf_s *config;
+ struct net_device *orig_dev;
+ int rc;
+
+ orig_dev = skb->dev;
+ skb->dev = ep->egress_dev;
+
+ config = (struct rmnet_phys_ep_conf_s *)
+ rcu_dereference(skb->dev->rx_handler_data);
This is certainly a misuse of dev->rx_handler_data. Dev private of a
function arg to carry the pointer around.
Hi Jiri
Sorry for the delay in posting a new series.
I have an additional query regarding this comment.
This dev (from skb->dev->rx_handler_data) corresponds to the real_dev to
which
the rmnet devices are attached to. I had earlier setup a rx_handler on
this
real_dev netdevice in rmnet_associate_network_device(). Would it still
be
incorrect to use rx_handler_data of real_dev to have rmnet specific
config
information?
Bridge is similarly storing the bridge information on the real_dev
rx_handler_data and retrieving it through br_port_get_rcu(). I am using
that
as a reference.
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
