On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 01:05:51PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:02:10 +0200 > > > We never use RCU protection for it, just a lot of cargo-cult > > rcu_deference_protects calls. > > > > Note that we do keep the kfree_rcu call for it, as the references through > > struct sock are RCU protected and thus might require a grace period before > > freeing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> > > These were added by Eric Dumazet and I would never accuse him of cargo > cult programming. > > All of the rcu_dereference_protects() calls are legit, even though some > of them use '1' as the protects condition because in fact we know the > object is dead and gone through an RCU cycle at that point.
I disagree, but I'll resend it the patch with Eric and Paul in CC to settle the argument.
