sockets: hide socket hhook(9)s under SOCKET_HHOOK
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by glebius on Apr 24 2024, 6:31 PM.

Details

Reviewers

stevek
tuexen

Commits

rG99b0270adc2a: sockets: hide socket hhook(9)s under SOCKET_HHOOK

Summary

There are no in-tree consumers of these hooks.

Diff Detail

Repository

rG FreeBSD src repository

Lint

Lint Skipped

Unit

Tests Skipped

Build Status

Buildable 57379
Build 54267: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

glebius created this revision.Apr 24 2024, 6:31 PM

Herald added subscribers: olce, imp. · View Herald TranscriptApr 24 2024, 6:31 PM

glebius requested review of this revision.Apr 24 2024, 6:31 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B57326: Diff 137606.Apr 24 2024, 6:31 PM

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

glebius added a reviewer: tuexen.Apr 24 2024, 6:32 PM

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.

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 retitled this revision from sockets: hide socket hhook(9)s under TCP_HHOOK to sockets: hide socket hhook(9)s under SOCKET_HHOOK.Apr 25 2024, 3:29 AM

SOCKET_HHOOK instead of TCP_HHOOK

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B57339: Diff 137640.Apr 25 2024, 4:03 AM

tuexen added inline comments.Apr 25 2024, 5:27 AM

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?