Re: [PATCH] tiny af_packet.c cleanup

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:26:28 -0700
Mitchell Blank Jr [off-list ref] wrote:

Francois Romieu wrote:

quoted

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.