| Message ID | dea5bffe0e6a78944c91d30a201173cfcedc03b0.1614776769.git.geliangtang@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | Mat Martineau |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v5,mptcp-next,1/5] mptcp: avoid passing rm_list as a struct | expand |
diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c index fa1dd6b8ec2f..12e75ad29dc4 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c @@ -629,8 +629,6 @@ static void mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received(struct mptcp_sock *msk) WRITE_ONCE(msk->pm.accept_addr, true); __MPTCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), MPTCP_MIB_RMADDR); - - break; } } } @@ -703,8 +701,6 @@ void mptcp_pm_nl_rm_subflow_received(struct mptcp_sock *msk, msk->pm.subflows--; __MPTCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), MPTCP_MIB_RMSUBFLOW); - - break; } } }
There's only one subflow involving the non-zero id address, but there may be multi subflows involving the id 0 address. Here's an example: local_id=0, remote_id=0 local_id=1, remote_id=0 local_id=0, remote_id=1 If the removing address id is 0, all the subflows involving the id 0 address need to be removed. In mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_received/mptcp_pm_nl_rm_subflow_received, the "break" prevents the iteration to the next subflow, so this patch dropped them. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> --- net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)