Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family

[Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>]

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