From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
Drop this patch as Martin suggested.
From Martin's review [1], this mptcp_sock_acquire() helper was a workaround
only to please the verifier, but they were not needed.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/9b373a23-c093-42d8-b4ae-99f2e62e7681@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
---
net/mptcp/bpf.c | 19 -------------------
1 file changed, 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c
index a307490bb20e..9091da0a24b0 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c
@@ -297,23 +297,6 @@ bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it)
{
}
-__bpf_kfunc static struct
-mptcp_sock *bpf_mptcp_sock_acquire(struct mptcp_sock *msk)
-{
- struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)msk;
-
- if (sk && refcount_inc_not_zero(&sk->sk_refcnt))
- return msk;
- return NULL;
-}
-
-__bpf_kfunc static void bpf_mptcp_sock_release(struct mptcp_sock *msk)
-{
- struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)msk;
-
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!sk || !refcount_dec_not_one(&sk->sk_refcnt));
-}
-
__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context *
bpf_mptcp_subflow_ctx_by_pos(const struct mptcp_sched_data *data, unsigned int pos)
{
@@ -334,8 +317,6 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_mptcp_subflow_ctx, KF_RET_NULL)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
-BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_mptcp_sock_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
-BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_mptcp_sock_release, KF_RELEASE)
BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_mptcp_common_kfunc_ids)
static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_mptcp_common_kfunc_set = {
--
2.43.0