Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:03:30 -0800 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family |
| |
At 11:04 PM 2/18/2003, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:54:21 +1100 > > Firstly, the owner field should probably be in struct proto_ops not > struct socket, where the function pointers are. > >I think this is one of Alexey's main problems with the patch. This is a bit more informative than "oh it's an ugly hack" ;-)
Ok. I got at least three reasons why I think owner field should be in struct socket: - struct proto_ops doesn't exists without struct socket. It cannot be registered or otherwise used on it's own. - struct sock might inherit (when needed see my explanation about different families) its owner from struct socket. In which case sk_set_owner(sk, socket->ops->owner) doesn't look right. - we might want to protect something else besides socket->ops.
None of those reasons are critical. If you guys still feel that ->owner must be in struct proto_ops be that way, I'm ok with it.
Any other comments ? Alexey, this is the time for you to speak up ;-). Please please. So far I got zero feedback from you. And you are the one who somehow made DaveM radically change his mind :).
Thanks Max
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |