[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77c1be59-5e55-80f1-4fc6-16fb65846b7e@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:02:06 +0100
From: Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/smc: Don't call clcsock shutdown twice when
smc shutdown
On 25/11/2021 07:19, Tony Lu wrote:
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 4b62c925a13e..7b04cb4d15f4 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -2373,6 +2373,7 @@ static int smc_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how)
> struct smc_sock *smc;
> int rc = -EINVAL;
> int rc1 = 0;
> + int old_state;
Reverse Christmas tree formatting, please.
>
> smc = smc_sk(sk);
>
> @@ -2398,7 +2399,12 @@ static int smc_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how)
> }
> switch (how) {
> case SHUT_RDWR: /* shutdown in both directions */
> + old_state = sk->sk_state;
> rc = smc_close_active(smc);
> + if (old_state == SMC_ACTIVE &&
> + sk->sk_state == SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1)
> + goto out_no_shutdown;
> +
I would prefer a new "bool do_shutdown" instead of a goto for this skip
of the shutdown. What do you think?
> break;
> case SHUT_WR:
> rc = smc_close_shutdown_write(smc);
> @@ -2410,6 +2416,8 @@ static int smc_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how)
> }
> if (smc->clcsock)
> rc1 = kernel_sock_shutdown(smc->clcsock, how);
> +
> +out_no_shutdown:
> /* map sock_shutdown_cmd constants to sk_shutdown value range */
> sk->sk_shutdown |= how + 1;
>
>
--
Karsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists