On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 19:49 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > In pppoatm_devppp_ioctl() we also don't have sk->sk_lock.slock lock. > In original patch synchronization was trivial because callback > from socket lock is used. > > I also though about sharing word with encaps enum - encaps needs only 2 bits, > but it's ugly.
Yeah, fair enough. It's not the end of the world having it in a separate word. I was just trying to avoid bloating the structure more than we needed to. Acked-by: David Woodhouse <david.woodho...@intel.com> for your new version of patch #6 (returning DROP_PACKET for !VF_READY), and your followup to my patch #8, adding the 'need_wakeup' flag. Which we might as well merge into (the pppoatm part of) my patch. Chas, are you happy with the generic ATM part of that? And the nomenclature? I didn't want to call it 'release_cb' like the core socket code does, because we use 'release' to mean something different in ATM. So I called it 'unlock_cb' instead... -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature