[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210401231947.162836-4-mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:19:43 -0700
From: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, matthieu.baerts@...sares.net,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 3/7] mptcp: remove unneeded check on first subflow
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Currently we explicitly check for the first subflow being
NULL in a couple of places, even if we don't need any
special actions in such scenario.
Just drop the unneeded checks, to avoid confusion.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
---
net/mptcp/options.c | 2 +-
net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mptcp/options.c b/net/mptcp/options.c
index 69cafaacc31b..68361d28dc67 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/options.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/options.c
@@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ bool mptcp_update_rcv_data_fin(struct mptcp_sock *msk, u64 data_fin_seq, bool us
* should match. If they mismatch, the peer is misbehaving and
* we will prefer the most recent information.
*/
- if (READ_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin) || !READ_ONCE(msk->first))
+ if (READ_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin))
return false;
WRITE_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin_seq,
diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
index 0c916d48cad8..531ee24aa827 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static bool mptcp_check_data_fin(struct sock *sk)
u64 rcv_data_fin_seq;
bool ret = false;
- if (__mptcp_check_fallback(msk) || !msk->first)
+ if (__mptcp_check_fallback(msk))
return ret;
/* Need to ack a DATA_FIN received from a peer while this side
--
2.31.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists