From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Set socket flags on restore using sock_setsockopt() where possible Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:55:46 -0700 Message-ID: <87r5vfpjy5.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1250191750-3864-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1250191750-3864-2-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A846D0E.90607@librato.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A846D0E.90607-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> (Oren Laadan's message of "Thu\, 13 Aug 2009 15\:44\:14 -0400") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org OL> When you add support to new socket due to connect() that were not OL> yet accept()ed from the listening socket - there will be a case of OL> a sock without sock->sk_socket. OL> This probably means that we want the test for sock->sk_socket to OL> remain as is (and a similar one in sock_rst_flags above) Okay, but we've got a lot of other places above that where we assume sock->sk_socket is valid, so the thinking here was that when we have a real reason to handle that case, I'd fix all the other cases as well. However, I shouldn't have done that in the middle of this patch anyway. OL> Super nit: perhaps s/rst/restore/ ? Besides agreeing with current OL> practice, it may dodge a related rant from Linux :o Sure. I'll re-send with the rename and without the sock->sk_socket and then follow up with a fix for the other cases in a later patch. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org