From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] make sock_alloc_file() do sock_release() on failures
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:33:56 -0800
Message-ID: <1512120836.19682.33.camel@gmail.com>
References: <20171201002027.GI21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
         <20171201002325.GL21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:43595 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750881AbdLAJd7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 1 Dec 2017 04:33:59 -0500
Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id s37so10572495ioe.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:33:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20171201002325.GL21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 00:23 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> This changes calling conventions (and simplifies the hell out
> the callers).  New rules: once struct socket had been passed
> to sock_alloc_file(), it's been consumed either by struct file
> or by sock_release() done by sock_alloc_file().  Either way
> the caller should not do sock_release() after that point.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> ---

Nice cleanup !

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>