From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/7] sctp: reuse the some transport traversal functions in proc Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:09:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20160407130930.GA4573@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Vlad Yasevich , daniel@iogearbox.net, davem@davemloft.net To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:35999 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756047AbcDGNJt (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:09:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:06:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > There are some transport traversal functions for sctp_diag, we can also > use it for sctp_proc. cause they have the similar situation to traversal > transport. > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long > --- > net/sctp/proc.c | 80 +++++++++++++-------------------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c > index 5cfac8d..dd8492f 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/proc.c > +++ b/net/sctp/proc.c > @@ -282,80 +282,31 @@ struct sctp_ht_iter { > struct rhashtable_iter hti; > }; > > -static struct sctp_transport *sctp_transport_get_next(struct seq_file *seq) > -{ > - struct sctp_ht_iter *iter = seq->private; > - struct sctp_transport *t; > - > - t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti); > - for (; t; t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti)) { > - if (IS_ERR(t)) { > - if (PTR_ERR(t) == -EAGAIN) > - continue; > - break; > - } > - > - if (net_eq(sock_net(t->asoc->base.sk), seq_file_net(seq)) && > - t->asoc->peer.primary_path == t) > - break; > - } > - > - return t; > -} > - this may just be a nit, but you defined the new sctp_transport_get_next in patch 2 of this series, and didn't remove this private version until here. Is that going to cause some behavioral issue, if someone builds a kernel between patch 2 and 7? Seems like perhaps those two patches should be merged. Neil