From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next] net/tcp: trace all TCP/IP state transition
 with tcp_set_state tracepoint
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:03:56 -0200
Message-ID: <20171208110356.GS13341@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1512655842-17784-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20171207200245.GQ13341@localhost.localdomain>
 <CALOAHbAixEmBFTuTD42GtC6sbqdguGVSEX8w6+GTw6rLRwRuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALOAHbBbo+ueVt7Wu=wAvgrfFjg7LVHfo4W_hhv_d7pQzeY9+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@netflix.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qt0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:40588 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753256AbdLHLEE (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:04:04 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALOAHbBbo+ueVt7Wu=wAvgrfFjg7LVHfo4W_hhv_d7pQzeY9+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:40:23AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> It will looks like these,
> 
>     if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_TCP)
>         __tcp_set_state(newsk, TCP_SYN_RECV);
>     else
>         newsk->sk_state = TCP_SYN_RECV;
> 
> 
>     if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_TCP)
>           __tcp_set_state(sk, TCP_CLOSE);
>     else
>           sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE;
> 
>     if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_TCP)
>           tcp_state_store(sk,  state);
>     else
>           sk_state_store(sk, state);
> 
> 
> Some redundant code.
> 
> IMO, put these similar code into a wrapper is more nice.

Agreed. Hmpf, looks like one way or another, we have to add the sk_
functions to do such check, and then the tcp_* won't help much.

I'm okay with this v5 then, can't see a better way around it.

  Marcelo