On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:31:49PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > Because it does not lock the lock, just compare: > > lock(); > __unix_set_addr(); > unlock(); > > to: > > lock(); > __unix_set_addr(); > > Clearly the former is more readable and less error-prone. Even > if you really want to do unlock, pick a name which explicitly says > it, for example, __unix_set_addr_unlock(). *shrug* If anything, __unix_complete_bind() might make a better name for that, with dropping ->bindlock also pulled in, but TBH I don't have sufficiently strong preferences - might as well leave dropping the lock to caller. I'll post that series to netdev tonight.
