[SOCK]: Introduce sk_receive_skb

Its common enough to to justify that, TCP still can't use it as it has the
prequeueing stuff, still to be made generic in the not so distant future :-)

Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@mandriva.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/net/dccp/ipv6.c b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
index 599b0be21515..2e194c8f9953 100644
--- a/net/dccp/ipv6.c
+++ b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
@@ -1032,7 +1032,6 @@ static int dccp_v6_rcv(struct sk_buff **pskb, unsigned int *nhoffp)
         const struct dccp_hdr *dh;
         struct sk_buff *skb = *pskb;
         struct sock *sk;
-        int rc;
 
         /* Step 1: Check header basics: */
 
@@ -1077,21 +1076,7 @@ static int dccp_v6_rcv(struct sk_buff **pskb, unsigned int *nhoffp)
         if (!xfrm6_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
                 goto discard_and_relse;
 
-        if (sk_filter(sk, skb, 0))
-                goto discard_and_relse;
-
-        skb->dev = NULL;
-
-        bh_lock_sock(sk);
-        rc = 0;
-        if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
-                rc = dccp_v6_do_rcv(sk, skb);
-        else
-                sk_add_backlog(sk, skb);
-        bh_unlock_sock(sk);
-
-        sock_put(sk);
-        return rc ? -1 : 0;
+        return sk_receive_skb(sk, skb) ? -1 : 0;
 
 no_dccp_socket:
         if (!xfrm6_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))