@@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ 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,
@@ -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
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 <pabeni@redhat.com> --- net/mptcp/options.c | 2 +- net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)