On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:31:49PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:

Because it does not lock the lock, just compare:

lock();
__unix_set_addr();
unlock();

to:

lock();
__unix_set_addr();

Clearly the former is more readable and less error-prone. Even
if you really want to do unlock, pick a name which explicitly says
it, for example, __unix_set_addr_unlock().

*shrug*

If anything, __unix_complete_bind() might make a better name for that,
with dropping ->bindlock also pulled in, but TBH I don't have sufficiently
strong preferences - might as well leave dropping the lock to caller.

I'll post that series to netdev tonight.