lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x25: remove the BKL
Date
On Thursday 27 January 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 janvier 2011 à 13:38 +0100, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> > diff --git a/net/x25/x25_out.c b/net/x25/x25_out.c
> > index d00649f..f1a6ff1 100644
> > --- a/net/x25/x25_out.c
> > +++ b/net/x25/x25_out.c
> > @@ -68,8 +68,11 @@ int x25_output(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > frontlen = skb_headroom(skb);
> >
> > while (skb->len > 0) {
> > - if ((skbn = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, frontlen + max_len,
> > - noblock, &err)) == NULL){
> > + release_sock(sk);
> > + skbn = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, frontlen + max_len,
> > + 1, &err);
> > + lock_sock(sk);
> > + if (!skbn) {
> > if (err == -EWOULDBLOCK && noblock){
> > kfree_skb(skb);
> > return sent;
>
> This part looks strange :
>
> noblock variable became "const 1 : NOBLOCK"
>
> Why releasing socket if you dont block in sock_alloc_send_skb() ?

Leftover from an earlier version of the patch, thanks for catching this!

Originally, I wrote this as

long timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, noblock)
do {
skbn = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, frontlen + max_len, 1, &err);
if (skbn)
break;
release_sock(sk);
timeo = sock_wait_for_wmem(sk, timeo);
lock_sock(sk);
} while (timeo);
Then I forgot to flip it back after I noticed that other protocols also just
call release_sock/lock_sock around sock_alloc_send_skb.

I think I'd better go over the whole series and see if there are more things
that got slightly broken...

Arnd
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-27 14:47    [W:0.117 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site