From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
> If my analysis is correct we can incredibly simplify sock_fasync(). I've also found more bugs in sock_fasync(), it's a real can of worms :-) It deviates from the return value policies used by othe file_ops->fasync() implementations. For example, if we look at fasync_helper() it clearly shows that we should return 1 if a list manipulation (insert of delete) happened else it should return 0. Also, my theory about struct file<-->struct socket being a one-to-one mapping is fully supported by the fact that struct socket has a "file" member that can only take on one value. - 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
