From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:05:49 +0200
> It was intentional, but I agree the other way around would be more
> consistent. If you want to send a patch, go ahead, otherwise I'll
> put it on my cleanup-list. Not allowing user sockets for unregistered
> protoco
Thomas Graf wrote:
> You don't undo the allocations of __netlink_create if the
> kmalloc for nlk->groups fails. So my question is if this is
> intended and you really want to rely on the caller to invoke
> sock_release() to free the sk again or whether it might be
> worth to follow the rule of leav
* Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-14 15:30
> Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-13 02:36
> >
> >>[NETLINK]: Support dynamic number of multicast groups per netlink family
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>- if ((err
Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-13 02:36
>
>>[NETLINK]: Support dynamic number of multicast groups per netlink family
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>- if ((err = __netlink_create(sock, protocol) < 0))
>>+ nlk->groups = kmallo
* Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-13 02:36
> [NETLINK]: Support dynamic number of multicast groups per netlink family
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - if ((err = __netlink_create(sock, protocol) < 0))
> + nlk->groups = kmalloc(NLGRPSZ(groups), GFP_
