Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:10:18 +1000 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] sigurg/sigio cleanup for 2.5.31 |
| |
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> In general, this is good... I think it could be better: > > > + lock_kernel(); > > + error = f_setown(filp, current->pid); > > + unlock_kernel(); > > There are a lot of these, and you even batch it up as sock_setown() > later. May I suggest renaming f_setown to __setown and sock_setown > to f_setown?
Sounds like a good idea.
> this one's particularly silly -- now you've done the good job of wrapping > the security_ops up inside f_setown this can simply be: > > lock_kernel(); > err = f_setown(filp, arg); > unlock_kernel(); > break;
Yep.
> Might make more sense to refactor as: > > void sk_send_sigurg(struct sock *sk) > { > if (!sk->socket || !sk->socket->file) > return; > if (send_sigurg(&sk->socket->file->f_owner)) > sk_wake_async(sk, 3, POLL_PRI); > } >
Possibly. I guess it's up to the networking guys -- is there any point in keeping these separate? I can't see any with the current code.
Thanks for the feedback.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au>
- 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/
|  |