From: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.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 <pab...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martin...@linux.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
