Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: drop duplicate check_app_limited in tcp_bpf_push

[gang.yan@linux.dev]

September 14, 2026 at 4:24 PM, "Jiayuan Chen" <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev mailto:jiayuan.chen@linux.dev?to=%22Jiayuan%20Chen%22%20%3Cjiayuan.chen%40linux.dev%3E > wrote:

> Same as the tls one: this looks like a cleanup to me. Is there a real regression that affects kernel or user behavior?
> 
> Do we really need a Fixes tag?
> 
Hi Jiayuan,

It's a part of the thread in [1], just kindly remind that there had some comments from Matt:

'''
Also, should this be seen as a fix? From what I understand, some
behaviours have changed, and it is only recently that this call is no
longer needed.
'''

From my view, it seems like that there have some misses in the 'fixed' commit, so the fix tag
should be kept, right?


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/b5f9e8d7-b738-1df6-3b5e-1d54cbbc663c@gmail.com/T/#m1fbcb32408236e2c68554fd26353c98bb59633f9

Thanks
Gang
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >  ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> >  diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> >  index 2e234d155b5e..d5fcf3ce4861 100644
> >  --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> >  +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> >  @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ static int tcp_bpf_push(struct sock *sk, struct sk_msg *msg, u32 apply_bytes,
> >  off = sge->offset;
> >  page = sg_page(sge);
> >  > - tcp_rate_check_app_limited(sk);
> >  retry:
> >  msghdr.msg_flags = flags | MSG_SPLICE_PAGES;
> >  has_tx_ulp = tls_sw_has_ctx_tx(sk);
> >
>