Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 13:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2012-06-06, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Grant Edwards <redacted>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:59:19 +0000 (UTC)

quoted

At the time it was written (probably 10+ years ago) it was relying on
the documented API for alloc_skb() that stated alloc_skb() either
returned an sk_buff of the requested size or it failed.

It was never a formal API that we would only allocate 'size'
amount of tailroom.

How can you say that?

Documentation was stale, so what ?

kmalloc(99) doesnt allocate 99 bytes but 128, so what ?

Grant, what about you fix your code ?