From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: compat_sock_common_getsockopt typo? Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:26:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1173137211.15891.27.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tosyh4j1/RgjOKKP+OpE" To: netdev Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:59815 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934108AbXCFNLg (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:11:36 -0500 Received: from [131.234.73.23] by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HOZNX-00030T-7O for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:06:55 +0000 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-tosyh4j1/RgjOKKP+OpE Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The function reads as follows: int compat_sock_common_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optna= me, char __user *optval, int __user *optlen) { struct sock *sk =3D sock->sk; if (sk->sk_prot->compat_setsockopt !=3D NULL) ^^^ return sk->sk_prot->compat_getsockopt(sk, level, optname, ^^^ optval, optlen); return sk->sk_prot->getsockopt(sk, level, optname, optval, optlen); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(compat_sock_common_getsockopt); Is that intentional to make protocol writers assign both if they want compat_setsockopt? :P johannes --=-tosyh4j1/RgjOKKP+OpE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBF7Kc6/ETPhpq3jKURAkDwAKCRGvsINOsO4rghazRIIgu5ocCU9wCgjJ/B PsIoVEP0T0iL+CdKzmxdOxA= =G58D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tosyh4j1/RgjOKKP+OpE--