From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yongjun Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 0/7] SCTP updates for net-next-2.6 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:59:16 +0800 Message-ID: <4DB76A64.3020708@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4DB63F85.2090609@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110426.001238.183056292.davem@davemloft.net> <20110426.145120.28826019.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:51363 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754537Ab1D0A7d (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:59:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110426.145120.28826019.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Wei, while you are re-spinning this patch set I want to bring up > something I just noticed in the SCTP code. > > The ->dst_saddr() method is not used by anything, it appears. > > The ipv4 variant, sctp_v4_dst_saddr() is called internally by the > ipv4 specific code, but that's it. > > So I think the ->dst_saddr member of sctp_pf can be completely > removed, as can sctp_v6_dst_saddr(). > > The sctp_v4_dst_saddr() function, of course, will need to be retained. David, thanks to noticed this. I will cleanup it. And I have a stupid question about the rule of backport. Since those patchs have existed so long time, when I backport those patchs, I'd better fix the bug in the original patch, or create new patch to fix it? Also how about some thing need to improvement like the ->dst_saddr() method?