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