Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family

Max Krasnyansky
2003-02-19T17:57:32Z

At 11:04 PM 2/18/2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:54:21 +1100
>
> Firstly, the owner field should probably be in struct proto_ops not
> struct socket, where the function pointers are.
>
>I think this is one of Alexey's main problems with the patch.
This is a bit more informative than "oh it's an ugly hack" ;-)

Ok. I got at least three reasons why I think owner field should be in struct
socket:
- struct proto_ops doesn't exists without struct socket.
It cannot be registered or otherwise used on it's own.
- struct sock might inherit (when needed see my explanation about different families)
its owner from struct socket. In which case sk_set_owner(sk, socket->ops->owner) doesn't
look right.
- we might want to protect something else besides socket->ops.

None of those reasons are critical. If you guys still feel that ->owner must be in struct
proto_ops be that way, I'm ok with it.

Any other comments ?
Alexey, this is the time for you to speak up ;-). Please please. So far I got zero feedback
from you. And you are the one who somehow made DaveM radically change his mind :).

Thanks
Max