On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 21:55:49 +0100 David Howells wrote: > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this > > field is. > > > > In fact should we also add && sock_owned_by_user(). Martin, WDYT? Would > > that work for reuseport? Jakub S is fixing l2tp to hold the socket lock > > while setting this field, yet most places take the callback lock... > > So how do you want to proceed? My first version of the patch with > sock_owned_by_user()? Sorry about the lack of clarity. I was sort of expecting the name to still be shortened, but what you have is probably good enough. Applying v1, then, thanks!
