Hi Gustavo,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:13:40AM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If the L2CAP user is l2cap_sock.c chan->data is a pointer to the l2cap
> socket so chan->sk and chan->data are the same thing. Then we can just
> compare with chan->data instead.
>
> Non-socket users will have skb->sk = NULL, thus this change does not
> interfere in other users.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> index 934ac1b..92936db 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> @@ -2682,12 +2682,11 @@ static void l2cap_raw_recv(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sk_buff *skb)
> mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry(chan, &conn->chan_l, list) {
> - struct sock *sk = chan->sk;
> if (chan->chan_type != L2CAP_CHAN_RAW)
> continue;
>
> /* Don't send frame to the socket it came from */
> - if (skb->sk == sk)
> + if (skb->sk && skb->sk == chan->data)
In the other patch you delete chan->sk pointer and then we have only
chan->data which points to sk. What is the reason for that? This would
confuse people reading chan->data guessing what the hell is this.
I really think we can leave chan->sk if it is needed and it is better to
remove chan->data.
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
