Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | [PATCH net-next 06/17] rxrpc: Don't use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to guard socket state changes | From | David Howells <> | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:15:13 +0000 |
| |
Don't use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to guard socket state changes as the socket mutex is sufficient.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org ---
net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c b/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c index 7a0dc01741e7..8ad4d85acb0b 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c @@ -812,14 +812,12 @@ static int rxrpc_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int flags) lock_sock(sk); - spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); if (sk->sk_state < RXRPC_CLOSE) { sk->sk_state = RXRPC_CLOSE; sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK; } else { ret = -ESHUTDOWN; } - spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); rxrpc_discard_prealloc(rx); @@ -872,9 +870,7 @@ static int rxrpc_release_sock(struct sock *sk) break; } - spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); sk->sk_state = RXRPC_CLOSE; - spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); if (rx->local && rcu_access_pointer(rx->local->service) == rx) { write_lock(&rx->local->services_lock);
| |