On 24/11/2021 09:57, Tony Lu wrote: > IMHO, given that, it is better to not ignore smc_close_final(), and move > kernel_sock_shutdown() to __smc_release(), because smc_shutdown() also > calls kernel_sock_shutdown() after smc_close_active() and > smc_close_shutdown_write(), then enters SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1. It's no need > to call it twice with SHUT_WR and SHUT_RDWR. Since the idea is to shutdown the socket before the remote peer shutdowns it first, are you sure that this shutdown in smc_release() is not too late? Is it sure that smc_release() is called in time for this processing? Maybe its better to keep the shutdown in smc_close_active() and to use an rc1 just like shown in your proposal, and return either the rc of smc_close_final() or the rc of kernel_sock_shutdown(). I see the possibility of calling shutdown twice for the clcsocket, but does it harm enough to give a reason to check it before in smc_shutdown()? I expect TCP to handle this already.
