[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160609.233025.1997097561663090020.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: Simplify connect() implementation and simplify
sendmsg() op
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:02:51 +0100
> Simplify the RxRPC connect() implementation. It will just note the
> destination address it is given, and if a sendmsg() comes along with no
> address, this will be assigned as the address. No transport struct will be
> held internally, which will allow us to remove this later.
>
> Simplify sendmsg() also. Whilst a call is active, userspace refers to it
> by a private unique user ID specified in a control message. When sendmsg()
> sees a user ID that doesn't map to an extant call, it creates a new call
> for that user ID and attempts to add it. If, when we try to add it, the
> user ID is now registered, we now reject the message with -EEXIST. We
> should never see this situation unless two threads are racing, trying to
> create a call with the same ID - which would be an error.
>
> It also isn't required to provide sendmsg() with an address - provided the
> control message data holds a user ID that maps to a currently active call.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Applied to net-next, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists