Re: [PATCH] can: use sock_efree instead of own destructor

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 14:36 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

Yes - in connection with sock_rfree() for the read buffer destructur and
sock_wfree() for the write buffer it can make sense to name a function
sock_efree() as an unassigned destructor - which does not fiddle with rmem nor
wmen.

But both sock_efree() and sock_edemux() lack some comment - especially when it
makes sense to use them from non-INET contexts which Florian suggested.

Maybe Alexander can send a patch which adds a comment, as I don't know if I
would find the best words for it.

Please do not top post on netdev.

If you cannot find best words for it, maybe a comment would not be
useful : Very often, best comments are added by people that had problems
to understand the code ;)

I do not trust comments, I prefer using "git grep" or tools like that to
check call sites.

In this particular case this becomes clear, while being concise.

# git grep -n sock_efree
include/net/sock.h:1526:void sock_efree(struct sk_buff *skb);
include/net/sock.h:1530:#define sock_edemux(skb) sock_efree(skb)
net/core/skbuff.c:3625: clone->destructor = sock_efree;
net/core/sock.c:1658:void sock_efree(struct sk_buff *skb)
net/core/sock.c:1662:EXPORT_SYMBOL(sock_efree);
net/ipv4/udp.c:1992:    skb->destructor = sock_efree;