Re: [PATCH] tiny af_packet.c cleanup

["David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:26:28 -0700
Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

When you guys decide on a final patch let me know, the semantic
parts of Mitchell's changes look perfectly fine to me.