Please excuse this restatement of an earlier concern.
> From suzannew Sat Oct 1 11:00:28 2005
> With the spotlight leaving in_dev_get, we have the parallel question
> of in_dev_put() and __in_dev_put() both defined with refcnt
> decrement, but the preceding underscore may lend itself to an
> inadvertant pairing and refcnt inaccuracy.
Dave Miller already addressed this question in
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0509.3/0757.html
> It may not be reasonable to rename __in_dev_put for its parallel definition
> since its current usage is with __in_dev_get_rtnl() which does not increment
> refcnt.
But the following may be worth considering.
> It is also probably good to retain the old __in_dev_get()
and deprecate it.
Thank you.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
