sockets: hide socket hhook(9)s under SOCKET_HHOOK

[glebius]

Summary

There are no in-tree consumers of these hooks.

[glebius]

Or, this can go under SOCKET_HHOOK new option. Cause these two hhooks aren't really related. What do you think?

[stevek]

In D44928#1024386, @glebius wrote:

Or, this can go under SOCKET_HHOOK new option. Cause these two hhooks aren't really related. What do you think?

I think SOCKET_HHOOK would be better, yes.

[tuexen]

In D44928#1024394, @stevek wrote:

In D44928#1024386, @glebius wrote:

Or, this can go under SOCKET_HHOOK new option. Cause these two hhooks aren't really related. What do you think?

I think SOCKET_HHOOK would be better, yes.

So any reason you use TCP_HHOOK instead of SOCKET_HHOOK? I would prefer SOCKET_HHOOK.

[glebius]

SOCKET_HHOOK instead of TCP_HHOOK

[tuexen]

sys/kern/uipc_socket.c

438

When this comment was introduced, it applied to the if statement above and was put before the if statement. See 4ec737123326. So are you moving it down intentionally?

[glebius]

sys/kern/uipc_socket.c

438

Indeed. I assumed the comment says that so_gencnt and numopensockets can be made atomics. I will put the comment back.

[glebius]

Move comment back.