From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:52:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030220093911.0d40b228@mail1.qualcomm.com> (raw)
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.
Ok. I'll take that back :).
The thing is that socket->ops is set from the protocol itself not in the generic socket code.
Here is what sock_create() does
if (!(sock = sock_alloc()))
{
printk(KERN_WARNING "socket: no more sockets\n");
i = -ENFILE; /* Not exactly a match, but its the
closest posix thing */
goto out;
}
sock->type = type;
if ((i = net_families[family]->create(sock, protocol)) < 0)
{
sock_release(sock);
goto out;
}
It simply calls net_family->create() which then sets its private struct proto_ops.
So I think owner field should be in the struct socket because it needs to be
accessible from net/socket.c:sock_create()/sock_release().
Dave, Alexey, do you guys still strongly believe that it's a hack ?
If yes what do I need to do to convince otherwise ? ;-)
Max
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-20 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-20 17:52 Max Krasnyansky [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-26 8:11 [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-02 11:43 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-03 8:24 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-20 3:22 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-21 11:03 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-21 19:42 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-21 19:36 ` David S. Miller
2003-02-07 9:48 ` David S. Miller
2003-02-07 23:34 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-08 8:44 ` David S. Miller
2003-02-18 3:46 ` David S. Miller
2003-02-18 18:50 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-18 21:09 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2003-02-19 3:54 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-19 7:04 ` David S. Miller
2003-02-19 18:03 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-19 20:31 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-19 17:45 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-20 1:21 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-20 17:38 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-21 0:30 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-21 1:17 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-21 8:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-21 17:44 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-24 1:01 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-24 19:35 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-25 5:02 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-26 20:21 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-07 9:21 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-09 20:45 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-09 23:53 ` David S. Miller
2002-12-19 23:08 Jean Tourrilhes
2002-12-19 23:23 ` Max Krasnyansky
2002-12-18 15:25 Max Krasnyansky
2002-12-19 16:05 ` Max Krasnyansky
2002-12-19 19:28 ` Alan Cox
2002-12-19 19:12 ` David S. Miller
2002-12-19 22:17 ` Max Krasnyansky
2002-12-21 6:54 ` David S. Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5.1.0.14.2.20030220093911.0d40b228@mail1.qualcomm.com \
--to=maxk@qualcomm.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).