On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 07:44, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 22:16:46 +0100 David Howells wrote: > > So either __rcu_dereference_sk_user_data_with_flags_check() has to be a macro, > > or we need to go with something like the first version of my patch where I > > don't pass the condition through. Do you have a preference? > > I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this > field is. In my opinion, I still think we'd better refactor it to a more geniric function, to avoid adding new functions when meeting the same problem. However, if this is just a standalone problem, maybe David's version shoule be better. So maybe apply the David's version, and refactor it later when meeting the same problem next time if needed. On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 08:43, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:44:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > One the naming - maybe just drop the _with_flags() ? There's no version > > of locked helper which does not take the flags. And not underscores? > I am also good with a shorter name. I also agree, the name is really long.
