Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751961AbXE3IkR (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 04:40:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751129AbXE3IkA (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 04:40:00 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]:42208 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751011AbXE3Ij7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 04:39:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Mf/WLrgBG7UQk9ut//v8jHmhwEv2fks6iVWJK8CaZxStIn0jSTr0WRI84f8XFyI8eow4HbGim6ch1YEJjKQWETkLI1zxLsLUKX/JEvfS7HV1kzCHTU3r24EQS8Bhy+U7vD5dwjFWoizTfXSyjFNLPtRmefVZmrm7v0CG4yqY5aU= Message-ID: <465D384C.4060006@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 16:39:40 +0800 From: Rankle_ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] merge dst_discard in & out into one, removed a duplicate function Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3128 Lines: 87 On 5/28/07, Jan Engelhardt > wrote: > Uhm, just replace every invocation of dst_discard_in/_out() directly > by dst_discard ... don't add macros for that. merge dst_discard in & out into one, this removed a duplicate function. Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng > --- Is there anybody also found this duplicate? I found this duplcate had existed from linux-2.2 linux-2.4 to the latest kernel tree, you could check it in the lxr site conveniently: http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/core/dst.c?v=2.2.26 http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/core/dst.c?v=2.4.18 http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/core/dst.c With little difference, the 2.2 and 2.4 version use two different function name: dst_discard and dst_blackhole, but the definition of them are the same, so they are same substantially. Additionally, the two same function are two local(static) functions in a single file dst.c, I don't know why there should exist two same functions. I wonder what the consideration of this design is, because I'm just a kernel newbie; this problem has been confusing me for many days, so if you know why, please drop me some directions. --- net/core/dst.c 2007-05-30 16:33:45.000000000 +0800 +++ net/core/dst.c.new 2007-05-28 18:22:36.000000000 +0800 @@ -111,13 +111,7 @@ out: spin_unlock(&dst_lock); } -static int dst_discard_in(struct sk_buff *skb) -{ - kfree_skb(skb); - return 0; -} - -static int dst_discard_out(struct sk_buff *skb) +static int dst_discard(struct sk_buff *skb) { kfree_skb(skb); return 0; @@ -138,8 +132,7 @@ void * dst_alloc(struct dst_ops * ops) dst->ops = ops; dst->lastuse = jiffies; dst->path = dst; - dst->input = dst_discard_in; - dst->output = dst_discard_out; + dst->input = dst->output = dst_discard; #if RT_CACHE_DEBUG >= 2 atomic_inc(&dst_total); #endif @@ -153,8 +146,7 @@ static void ___dst_free(struct dst_entry protocol module is unloaded. */ if (dst->dev == NULL || !(dst->dev->flags&IFF_UP)) { - dst->input = dst_discard_in; - dst->output = dst_discard_out; + dst->input = dst->output = dst_discard; } dst->obsolete = 2; } @@ -242,8 +234,7 @@ static inline void dst_ifdown(struct dst return; if (!unregister) { - dst->input = dst_discard_in; - dst->output = dst_discard_out; + dst->input = dst->output = dst_discard; } else { dst->dev = &loopback_dev; dev_hold(&loopback_dev); -- Denis Cheng Linux Application Developer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/