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
