netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/11] [NET] Convert sk_zapped into SOCK_ZAPPED flag

To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/11] [NET] Convert sk_zapped into SOCK_ZAPPED flag
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:56:49 +0100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <422F5461.4080008@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050309194521.GH31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050309194711.GJ31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <422F5461.4080008@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
* Patrick McHardy <422F5461.4080008@xxxxxxxxx> 2005-03-09 20:54
> Thomas Graf wrote:
> >-    volatile unsigned char  sk_zapped;
> >     unsigned char           sk_shutdown;
> >     unsigned char           sk_use_write_queue;
> >     unsigned char           sk_userlocks;
> >@@ -391,6 +389,7 @@
> >     SOCK_DESTROY,
> >     SOCK_BROADCAST,
> >     SOCK_TIMESTAMP,
> >+    SOCK_ZAPPED,
> 
> What about volatile ? sock_set_flag() uses __set_bit(), so its not
> the same.

I thought about this for a while but couldn't find a reason
why it shouldn't work. Actually I don't even see any reason for
having sk_zapped be volatile.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>