On 11/4/07, Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This removes a comment which identifies an `issue' with dccp_write_xmit() > where there is none. > The comment assumes it is possible that a packet is sent between the calls to > > ccid_hc_tx_send_packet(), > dccp_transmit_skb(), > ccid_hc_tx_packet_sent() > > (in the above order) in dccp_write_xmit(). > > I think that this is impossible, since dccp_write_xmit() is always called > under lock: > > * when called as dccp_write_xmit(sk, 1) from dccp_send_close(), the socket > is locked > (see code comment above dccp_send_close()); > * when called as dccp_write_xmit(sk, 0) from dccp_send_msg(), it is after > lock_sock() has been called; > * when called as dccp_write_xmit(sk, 0) from dccp_write_xmit_timer(), > bh_lock_sock() has been called > and the if/else statement has made sure that sk_lock.owner is not set; > * there are no other places where dccp_write_xmit() is called. > > Furthermore, the debug statement for printing the sequence number of the > packet just sent has been > removed, since the entire list is being printed anyway and so the entry of > that number appears last. > > Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
