[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6fcc0a0811131453l4c111135p7b58453a533693ea@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:53:26 +0300
From: "Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: #ifdef inet_bind_bucket::ib_net
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:24:23AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:24:48 +0300
>
> > +static inline void ib_net_set(struct inet_bind_bucket *ib, struct net *net)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
> > + ib->ib_net = net;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
>
> It's basically read_pnet() hidden behind another name.
> And you'll add new "aliases" for read_pnet() over and over
> again.
>
> That makes no sense to me.
It also make no sense to expose write_pnet() for one(!) user and
simultaneously hide read_pnet() under ib_net() as committed patches do.
Something is wrong with read_pnet() as nobody suggested to mass use it
or send a patch doing it.
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
ib->ib_net = net;
#endif
It's _obvious_ from this code that it's a C assignment or nop. It's also
obvious depending on what config option.
write_pnet(&ib->ib_net, net);
What is & operator doing here? Is it important? '&' is syntaxic noise.
And netns assignments are exactly this: assigment or a nop.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists