Re: [PATCH] tiny af_packet.c cleanup

[Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Francois Romieu wrote:
> See previously posted patch. Imho the non-trivial part isn't the locking
> itself but the fact that the first test of sk->sk_filter is done _without_
> lock.

OK, that was what I thought was going on.  I figured the short comment (along
with the likely()) would explain this adequately (i.e. "we're now re-checking
under lock so we get the authorative answer") but maybe it needs more
explaination.

-Mitch