From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wang Weidong Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] sctp: some small clean ups Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:06:15 +0800 Message-ID: <52DD1137.8040502@huawei.com> References: <1390217247-9408-1-git-send-email-wangweidong1@huawei.com> <52DD0A62.9050807@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:55466 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751916AbaATMGt (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:06:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52DD0A62.9050807@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2014/1/20 19:37, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/20/2014 12:27 PM, Wang Weidong wrote: >> We have the macros in sctp.h, so use them for coding accordance >> in sctp. > > Thanks for doing this Wang. > > I am actually wondering why we have these macro locking wrappers Here, I didn't found any description about it. In v2.6.12-rc2, the sctp use these macros. > and not use these functions directly? Hm, any reasons? Maybe we > should rather go in the other direction with this? > Yeah. Should I do the other direction for clean ups now? Regards, Wang >> Wang Weidong (2): >> sctp: use sctp_local_bh_{disable|enable} instead >> local_bh_{disable|enable} >> sctp: use sctp_read_[un]lock instead of read_[un]lock >> >> net/sctp/endpointola.c | 4 ++-- >> net/sctp/input.c | 10 +++++----- >> net/sctp/proc.c | 12 ++++++------ >> net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 8 ++++---- >> net/sctp/socket.c | 8 ++++---- >> 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> > >