From: Tom Tucker Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/38] svc: Add xpo_accept transport function Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:49:06 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20071214195544.GE23121@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: NeilBrown , To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mail.es335.com ([67.65.19.105]:28240 "EHLO mail.es335.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762619AbXLQKt2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:49:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071214195544.GE23121@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/14/07 1:55 PM, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > 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.) I moved this to it's own patch with a description of why it was removed. > > --b. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html