On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 07:09:21PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon,  9 Jan 2023 11:50:22 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > tcp_sock_refill() contains two near-identical loops to refill the IPv4
> > and IPv6 socket pools.  In addition, if we get an error on the IPv4 pool
> > we exit early and won't attempt to refill the IPv6 pool.  That doesn't seem
> > sensible, since these are essentially completely independent, and there
> > may be value to filling up either one without the other.
> 
> Well, for the purposes of the single error condition that's checked
> there, they're not independent, in practice: if we just had a socket
> number that's too high, the next one will be, too. This is not formally
> guaranteed, though.

Ok, I've tweaked the commit message a bit.

> In any case, this is indeed more elegant, and also drops a
> 'return -EIO' which doesn't really match the "Return: 0" comment.
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson