Looks fine but I haven't fully verified if not setting tail to NULL
is really OK, now I'm going to bed, tomorrow I'll take a look,
but for reference this is the cset where this function was
introduced, where we can see that the original code was
indeed setting tail to NULL:

http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=0e87506fcc734647c7b2497eee4eb81e785c857a

Thanks,

- Arnaldo

P.S.: Removing linux-kernel from the CC, this is networking
stuff so netdev should be enough.

On 3/5/06, Norbert Kiesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Norbert Kiesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi,
>
> just noticed that request_sock.[ch] contain a useless assignment of
> rskq_accept_head to itself.  I assume this is a typo and the 2nd one
> was supposed to be _tail.  However, setting _tail to NULL is not
> needed, so the patch below just drops the 2nd assignment.
>
> Best,
>   Norbert
>
> Signed-Off-By: Norbert Kiesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
>
> diff -ru a/include/net/request_sock.h b/include/net/request_sock.h
> --- a/include/net/request_sock.h        2005-10-28 15:44:45.000000000 -0700
> +++ b/include/net/request_sock.h        2006-03-05 15:22:33.000000000 -0800
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@
>  {
>         struct request_sock *req = queue->rskq_accept_head;
>
> -       queue->rskq_accept_head = queue->rskq_accept_head = NULL;
> +       queue->rskq_accept_head = NULL;
>         return req;
>  }
>
> diff -ru a/net/core/request_sock.c b/net/core/request_sock.c
> --- a/net/core/request_sock.c   2006-03-05 14:40:50.000000000 -0800
> +++ b/net/core/request_sock.c   2006-03-05 15:23:11.000000000 -0800
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
>
>         get_random_bytes(&lopt->hash_rnd, sizeof(lopt->hash_rnd));
>         rwlock_init(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
> -       queue->rskq_accept_head = queue->rskq_accept_head = NULL;
> +       queue->rskq_accept_head = NULL;
>         lopt->nr_table_entries = nr_table_entries;
>
>         write_lock_bh(&queue->syn_wait_lock);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to