Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: make smc_hash_sk/smc_unhash_sk static

[Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 09:25:01AM +0800, Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> smc_hash_sk and smc_unhash_sk are only used in af_smc.c, so make them
> static and remove the output symbol. They can be called under the path
> .prot->hash()/unhash().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@huawei.com>

This patch's good. The net-next is still closed for now. You can check
here:

	https://patchwork.hopto.org/net-next.html

Tony Lu

> ---
>  include/net/smc.h | 3 ---
>  net/smc/af_smc.c  | 6 ++----
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/smc.h b/include/net/smc.h
> index c9dcb30e3fd9..10684d0a33df 100644
> --- a/include/net/smc.h
> +++ b/include/net/smc.h
> @@ -26,9 +26,6 @@ struct smc_hashinfo {
>  	struct hlist_head ht;
>  };
>  
> -int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk);
> -void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk);
> -
>  /* SMCD/ISM device driver interface */
>  struct smcd_dmb {
>  	u64 dmb_tok;
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 4b52b3b159c0..e8dcd28a554c 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static struct smc_hashinfo smc_v6_hashinfo = {
>  	.lock = __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(smc_v6_hashinfo.lock),
>  };
>  
> -int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +static int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>  {
>  	struct smc_hashinfo *h = sk->sk_prot->h.smc_hash;
>  	struct hlist_head *head;
> @@ -191,9 +191,8 @@ int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smc_hash_sk);
>  
> -void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +static void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>  {
>  	struct smc_hashinfo *h = sk->sk_prot->h.smc_hash;
>  
> @@ -202,7 +201,6 @@ void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>  		sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, -1);
>  	write_unlock_bh(&h->lock);
>  }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smc_unhash_sk);
>  
>  /* This will be called before user really release sock_lock. So do the
>   * work which we didn't do because of user hold the sock_lock in the
> -- 
> 2.34.1