Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31138-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 13:37:05 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: wangkeqi <wangkeqi_chris@163.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, davem@davemloft.net,
	edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	wangkeqi <wangkeqiwang@didiglobal.com>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2] connector: Change the judgment conditions for
 clearing proc_event_num_listeners
Message-ID: <20240119123705.GB9015@breakpoint.cc>
References: <20240116015753.209781-1-wangkeqi_chris@163.com>
 <20240117114713.GA11468@breakpoint.cc>
 <1adb8c68.a950.18d1d237182.Coremail.wangkeqi_chris@163.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1adb8c68.a950.18d1d237182.Coremail.wangkeqi_chris@163.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

wangkeqi <wangkeqi_chris@163.com> wrote:
> 
> If cn_netlink_has_listeners() is used instead of proc_event_num_listeners, I think proc_event_num_listeners will be completely meaningless.?
> I read the code and found that there is nothing wrong with cn_netlink_has_listeners as a judgment of whether to send msg.?
> sock_close will update the listeners.?The previous proc_event_num_listeners count was wrong, making it meaningless.?
> But if I change it to cn_netlink_has_listeners, will it affect some low-probability scenarios?

Please avoid top-posting on netdev mailing list.

Yes, thats what I meant, replace proc_event_num_listeners.

I do not know what a 'low-probability scenarios' is.