Re: [PATCH] can: use sock_efree instead of own destructor
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Date: 2015-03-10 06:14:22
Also in:
linux-can
On 10.03.2015 04:48, Florian Westphal wrote:
It is identical to the can destructor. Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Hello Florian, the other callers use it in the same way so it's a good simplification. Btw. the name of sock_efree() is a bit misleading - nothing is free'd here. Won't it be better to rename sock_efree(skb) with sock_put_skb(skb) or something like that? sock_efree() has no comment why it's named like this. Regards, Oliver ps. changed from linux ML to netdev and linux-can ML in CC
quoted hunk
--- include/linux/can/skb.h | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/can/skb.h b/include/linux/can/skb.h index cc00d15..b6a52a4 100644 --- a/include/linux/can/skb.h +++ b/include/linux/can/skb.h@@ -44,16 +44,11 @@ static inline void can_skb_reserve(struct sk_buff *skb) skb_reserve(skb, sizeof(struct can_skb_priv)); } -static inline void can_skb_destructor(struct sk_buff *skb) -{ - sock_put(skb->sk); -} - static inline void can_skb_set_owner(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk) { if (sk) { sock_hold(sk); - skb->destructor = can_skb_destructor; + skb->destructor = sock_efree; skb->sk = sk; } }