Re: double call to ip_conntrack_put() ?

[Wang Jian <lark@linux.net.cn>]

Hi Amin Azez,

Yes, I am also confused by the _put for a while until I read the code.
IMHO, it's more clear to rename it to _release.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:02:31 +0100, Amin Azez <azez@ufomechanic.net> wrote:

> Tobias DiPasquale wrote:
> > This is intended. tuplehash_to_ctrack() generates a reference to the
> > conntrack record. In death_by_timeout() the refcount is decremented,
> > yielding 1 for the second call to ip_conntrack_put(). The dec_and_test
> > in nf_conntrack_put() (called by ip_conntrack_put()) will result in a
> > refcount of 0, sending the record to the destroy_conntrack() function
> > (or more properly, whatever's registered in nfct->destroy(), which I'm
> > pretty sure is always either NULL or destroy_conntrack()).
> 
> What I found confusing initially was that "put" in "ip_conntrack_put" 
> means "release" or "refcount--" instead of "write" or "store" which 
> would have been my first guess.
> 
> Sam Azez
> 



-- 
  lark