Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> By the way, Patrick, this looks like nlk->pid == 0 if and only if this >> is a kernel socket. Right? >> > > Thats correct. > >> I have told with Alexey Kuznetsov and we have discrovered a way to get >> rid of >> skb_queue_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue, skb); >> sk->sk_data_ready(sk, len); >> in netlink_sendskb/etc for kernel sockets and make user->kernel packets >> processing truly synchronous. >> >> The idea is simple, we should queue/wakeup in kernel->user direction and >> simply call nlk->data_ready for user->kernel direction. This will remove >> all the crap we have now. But we need a mark to determine the direction. >> Which one will be better? (nlk->data_ready) or (nlk->pid == 0) > > > Both would work fine, but I think nlk->pid is better since its > actually the "address".
Maybe. nlk->pid is also 0, before the socket is bound so it does not serve as a reliable indicator that you have a kernel socket. My gut feel says the best test is: (nlk->flags & NETLINK_KERNEL_SOCKET) There is no confusion in that and it is dead obvious what we are testing for. Although we do still need to properly handle the case when netlink_kernel_create is called with a NULL input method. As long as get the proper -ECONNREFUSED the code path doesn't look like it matters. Eric - 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
