From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Gartrell Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] socket: Allow external sockets to use socket syscalls Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:59:33 -0500 Message-ID: <549DBE25.3040302@fb.com> References: <1419576624-8999-1-git-send-email-agartrell@fb.com> <1419576624-8999-2-git-send-email-agartrell@fb.com> <20141226195650.GF22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:26383 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751259AbaLZUAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:00:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141226195650.GF22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Al, On 12/26/14 2:56 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 10:50:23PM -0800, Alex Gartrell wrote: >> Currently the "is-socket" test for a file compares the ops table pointer, >> which is static and local to the socket.c. Instead, this adds a flag for >> private_data_is_socket. This is an exceptionally long commit message for a >> two-line patch. > > NAK. Don't crap into struct file, please. > I don't disagree with your sentiment here. Is the additional f_op approach less gross or do you have something else in mind? Thanks, -- Alex Gartrell