Re: [PATCH V2] Add flow control to the portmapper

[Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:32:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 09:50:24AM -0500, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:40:06AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > 
> > > You are the one user of this new inline function.
> > > Why don't you directly call to netlink_unicast() in your ibnl_unicast()
> > > without messing with widely visible header file?
> > 
> > Since there is a non-blocking version of nlmsg_unicast(), the idea is 
> > to make a blocking version available to others as well as maintain 
> > consistency of existing code.
> > 
> 
> In such way, please provide patch series which will convert all other
> users to this new call.
> 
> ➜  linux-rdma git:(master) grep -rI netlink_unicast * | grep -I 0
> kernel/audit.c: err = netlink_unicast(audit_sock, skb, audit_nlk_portid, 0);
> kernel/audit.c:         netlink_unicast(aunet->nlsk, skb, dest->portid, 0);
> kernel/audit.c: netlink_unicast(aunet->nlsk , reply->skb, reply->portid, 0);
> kernel/audit.c: return netlink_unicast(audit_sock, skb, audit_nlk_portid, 0);
> samples/connector/cn_test.c:    netlink_unicast(nls, skb, 0, 0);

These usages of netlink_unicast() with blocking are not the same as the new
nlmsg_unicast_block() function. You can't drop in nlmsg_unicast_block() in 
place of netlink_unicast() in these places. I'm not going to introduce code 
which modifies old behavior.