[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54FE8BB0.9050508@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:14:08 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, mkl@...gutronix.de,
"linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: use sock_efree instead of own destructor
On 10.03.2015 04:48, Florian Westphal wrote:
> It is identical to the can destructor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Hello Florian,
the other callers use it in the same way so it's a good simplification.
Btw. the name of sock_efree() is a bit misleading - nothing is free'd here.
Won't it be better to rename sock_efree(skb) with sock_put_skb(skb) or
something like that? sock_efree() has no comment why it's named like this.
Regards,
Oliver
ps. changed from linux ML to netdev and linux-can ML in CC
> ---
> include/linux/can/skb.h | 7 +------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/can/skb.h b/include/linux/can/skb.h
> index cc00d15..b6a52a4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/can/skb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/can/skb.h
> @@ -44,16 +44,11 @@ static inline void can_skb_reserve(struct sk_buff *skb)
> skb_reserve(skb, sizeof(struct can_skb_priv));
> }
>
> -static inline void can_skb_destructor(struct sk_buff *skb)
> -{
> - sock_put(skb->sk);
> -}
> -
> static inline void can_skb_set_owner(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk)
> {
> if (sk) {
> sock_hold(sk);
> - skb->destructor = can_skb_destructor;
> + skb->destructor = sock_efree;
> skb->sk = sk;
> }
> }
>
--
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