Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 10/16] Don't lookup the socket if there's a socket attached to the skb

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:09:35 -0300

Em Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 05:43:20PM +0200, KOVACS Krisztian escreveu:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 08:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: KOVACS Krisztian <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:38:20 +0200
> > 
> > > The problem is that if you include the if() test then you have to
> > > include the lookup call as well and that's different for TCP/UDP.
> > 
> > No, I only mean to make a helper for this construct:
> > 
> > 	if (unlikely(skb->sk)) {
> > 		...
> > 	}
> > 
> > so, something like:
> > 
> > static inline struct sock *sock_skb_steal(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > {
> > 	if (unlikely(skb->sk)) {
> > 		struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
> > 
> > 		skb->destructor = NULL;
> > 		skb->sk = NULL;
> > 		return sk;
> > 	}
> > 	return NULL;
> > }
> > 
> > and then also get rid of the ifdefs at the place where
> > these calls are made (TCP and UDP).
> 
> Something like this?
> 
> - 8< -

Why don't you add it to __inet6_lookup, __inet6_lookup and the udp_lib
lookup routines? And please rename it to skb_steal_sock, as it acts on a
skb, not on a sock.

- Arnaldo