From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/38] svc: Add xpo_accept transport function Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:55:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20071214195544.GE23121@fieldses.org> References: <20071211233150.15718.40579.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20071211233217.15718.14380.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: neilb@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Tom Tucker Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:50821 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754056AbXLNTzs (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:55:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071211233217.15718.14380.stgit-gUwIgmpLGaKNDNWfRnPdfg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:32:17PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > @@ -1053,11 +1060,10 @@ svc_tcp_accept(struct svc_sock *svsk) > else if (err != -EAGAIN && net_ratelimit()) > printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: accept failed (err %d)!\n", > serv->sv_name, -err); > - return; > + return NULL; > } > > set_bit(SK_CONN, &svsk->sk_flags); > - svc_sock_enqueue(svsk); > > err = kernel_getpeername(newsock, sin, &slen); > if (err < 0) { Why did we need that svc_sock_enqueue here, and why don't we any more? (And if we don't, but we still need the set_bit, then we need to fix the comment at the top of the file claiming the svc_sock_enqueue() is always required after setting SK_CONN.) --b.