[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAVpQUBhyRevCUqAjLYEFFqfDTZT42KHUEjRpARbNzn3V_cYbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 23:21:50 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: Takamitsu Iwai <takamitz@...zon.co.jp>
Cc: linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Kohei Enju <enjuk@...zon.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Nikita Zhandarovich <n.zhandarovich@...tech.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 1/3] net: rose: split remove and free operations in rose_remove_neigh()
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 2:00 AM Takamitsu Iwai <takamitz@...zon.co.jp> wrote:
>
> The current rose_remove_neigh() performs two distinct operations:
> 1. Removes rose_neigh from rose_neigh_list
> 2. Frees the rose_neigh structure
>
> Split these operations into separate functions to improve maintainability
> and prepare for upcoming refcount_t conversion. The timer cleanup remains
> in rose_remove_neigh() because free operations can be called from timer
> itself.
>
> This patch introduce rose_neigh_put() to handle the freeing of rose_neigh
> structures and modify rose_remove_neigh() to handle removal only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Takamitsu Iwai <takamitz@...zon.co.jp>
Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists