From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264199AbTDWTBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:01:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264237AbTDWTBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:01:49 -0400 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]:12750 "EHLO numenor.qualcomm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264233AbTDWTBr (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:01:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030423114915.10840678@unixmail.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:13:37 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Max Krasnyansky Subject: [BK ChangeSet@1.1118.1.1] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family Cc: davem@redhat.com, acme@conectiva.com.br Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Folks, Can somebody (DaveM perhaps) please explain to me what the hell the following changset is doing in 2.5.68 http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.1118.1.1?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-7d ?? I've spent quite a bit of time looking into what's needed to fix socket module refcounting issues and convicting DaveM and Alex that we need to fix them. Here is the original thread http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104308300808557&w=2 My patch was rejected without giving any technical explanation. I was waiting for Rusty's __module_get() patch to get in, to release a new patch which addresses some issues that came up during discussion. Next thing you know, incomplete patch (changeset mentioned above) shows up in the BK and 2.5.68. Without even a simple note on the lkm. And completely ignoring discussion that we had about this very issue just a few weeks ago. I don't mind of course if some other (better) patch is accepted instead of mine. But patch that went in is incomplete and buggy. It doesn't handle accept case properly and doesn't address the issue of the 'struct sock' ownership (read original thread for more details). Thanks Max http://bluez.sf.net http://vtun.sf.net