On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:32:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 09:50:24AM -0500, Shiraz Saleem wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:40:06AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > You are the one user of this new inline function. > > > Why don't you directly call to netlink_unicast() in your ibnl_unicast() > > > without messing with widely visible header file? > > > > Since there is a non-blocking version of nlmsg_unicast(), the idea is > > to make a blocking version available to others as well as maintain > > consistency of existing code. > > > > In such way, please provide patch series which will convert all other > users to this new call. > > ➜ linux-rdma git:(master) grep -rI netlink_unicast * | grep -I 0 > kernel/audit.c: err = netlink_unicast(audit_sock, skb, audit_nlk_portid, 0); > kernel/audit.c: netlink_unicast(aunet->nlsk, skb, dest->portid, 0); > kernel/audit.c: netlink_unicast(aunet->nlsk , reply->skb, reply->portid, 0); > kernel/audit.c: return netlink_unicast(audit_sock, skb, audit_nlk_portid, 0); > samples/connector/cn_test.c: netlink_unicast(nls, skb, 0, 0);
These usages of netlink_unicast() with blocking are not the same as the new nlmsg_unicast_block() function. You can't drop in nlmsg_unicast_block() in place of netlink_unicast() in these places. I'm not going to introduce code which modifies old behavior.
