[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ef8acba-2ecc-37ec-165d-ba32b3f3fde@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, matthieu.baerts@...sares.net,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] mptcp: drop unused rcu member in
mptcp_pm_addr_entry
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 16:19:14 -0700 Mat Martineau wrote:
>> From: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>
>>
>> kfree_rcu() had been removed from pm_netlink.c, so this rcu field in
>> struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry became useless. Let's drop it.
>>
>> Fixes: 1729cf186d8a ("mptcp: create the listening socket for new port")
>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This just removes a superfluous member, right? So could as well be
> applied to net-next?
>
Hi Jakub -
Yes, it's just a superfluous member.
It seemed like a -net candidate, as it was addressing a mistake in a
previous commit (rather than a feature or refactor) and does affect memory
usage - and I was trying to be mindful of the stable tree process. But the
patch will apply cleanly to either net or net-next, so you could apply to
net-next if the fix is not significant enough.
I'll tune my net-vs-net-next threshold based on the tree I see it applied
to :)
Thanks!
--
Mat Martineau
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists