Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/14] af_unix: Bulk update unix_tot_inflight/unix_inflight when queuing skb.

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 18:34 -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:47:23 +0100
> > On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 13:39 -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
> > > index 96d0b1db3638..e8fe08796d02 100644
> > > --- a/net/unix/garbage.c
> > > +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
> > > @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ static void unix_free_vertices(struct scm_fp_list *fpl)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  DEFINE_SPINLOCK(unix_gc_lock);
> > > +unsigned int unix_tot_inflight;
> > >  
> > >  void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -172,7 +173,10 @@ void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
> > >  		unix_add_edge(fpl, edge);
> > >  	} while (i < fpl->count_unix);
> > >  
> > > +	WRITE_ONCE(unix_tot_inflight, unix_tot_inflight + fpl->count_unix);
> > >  out:
> > > +	WRITE_ONCE(fpl->user->unix_inflight, fpl->user->unix_inflight + fpl->count);
> > 
> > I'm unsure if later patches will shed some light, but why the above
> > statement is placed _after_ the 'out' label? fpl->count will be 0 in
> > such path, and the updated not needed. Why don't you place it before
> > the mentioned label?
> 
> fpl->count is the total number of fds in skb, and fpl->count_unix
> is the number of AF_UNIX fds.

Ah right you are! Sorry, I misread the variable name. This code looks
good.

Cheers,

Paolo