On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:02:06PM +0100, Karsten Graul wrote:
> 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.
Sorry for that, I will fix it in the next patch.
>
> >
> > 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?
I agree with you, I'd like bool condition rather than goto, which will
disturb the continuity of reading code.
I will fix it soon. Thank you.
Tony Lu
>
> > 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
