[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191009123423.GI5747@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:34:23 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/13] vsock: move vsock_insert_unbound() in the
vsock_create()
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:58PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> vsock_insert_unbound() was called only when 'sock' parameter of
> __vsock_create() was not null. This only happened when
> __vsock_create() was called by vsock_create().
>
> In order to simplify the multi-transports support, this patch
> moves vsock_insert_unbound() at the end of vsock_create().
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> ---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Maybe transports shouldn't call __vsock_create() directly. They always
pass NULL as the parent socket, so we could have a more specific
function that transports call without a parent sock argument. This
would eliminate any concern over moving vsock_insert_unbound() out of
this function. In any case, I've checked the code and this patch is
correct.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists