From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:58:47 +0300
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:54:45AM +0100, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > We would already do that on init. > > > Some things become very confused, when nl_table is not used to store > > > netlink sockets. > > > > > > Its unnecessary, but I don't understand what the problem is. > > Why would it be NULL and what gets confused? > > There is no problem as-is, but I implement unified cache for different > sockets (currently tcp/udp/raw and netlink are supported), which does > not use that table, so I currently wrap all access code into special > ifdefs, this one can be wrapped too, but since it is not needed, it > saves couple of lines of code. It is needed. It is there to make sure that a kernel netlink socket is not created before the af_netlink init code runs. We've had sequencing bugs like that in the initcall call chain in the past, that's why the check is there. - 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
