On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:06:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> There are some transport traversal functions for sctp_diag, we can also
> use it for sctp_proc. cause they have the similar situation to traversal
> transport.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sctp/proc.c | 80 +++++++++++++--------------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
> index 5cfac8d..dd8492f 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/proc.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
> @@ -282,80 +282,31 @@ struct sctp_ht_iter {
> struct rhashtable_iter hti;
> };
>
> -static struct sctp_transport *sctp_transport_get_next(struct seq_file *seq)
> -{
> - struct sctp_ht_iter *iter = seq->private;
> - struct sctp_transport *t;
> -
> - t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti);
> - for (; t; t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti)) {
> - if (IS_ERR(t)) {
> - if (PTR_ERR(t) == -EAGAIN)
> - continue;
> - break;
> - }
> -
> - if (net_eq(sock_net(t->asoc->base.sk), seq_file_net(seq)) &&
> - t->asoc->peer.primary_path == t)
> - break;
> - }
> -
> - return t;
> -}
> -
this may just be a nit, but you defined the new sctp_transport_get_next in patch
2 of this series, and didn't remove this private version until here. Is that
going to cause some behavioral issue, if someone builds a kernel between patch 2
and 7? Seems like perhaps those two patches should be merged.
Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
