On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 21:43 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

I don't understand the logic completely, but isn't it
safer to do 'goto wait_for_memory;' here if we happened
to hit this in the middle of the loop?

Well, the wait_for_memory pushes data, and could early return to user
space with short writes (non blocking IO). This would break things...

After processing backlog, tcp_send_mss() needs to be called again,
and we also need to check sk_err and sk_shutdown. A goto looks fine to
me.

Also does it make sense to rename __release_sock to
something like _ _ _sk_flush_backlog, since that's
what it's doing and not doing any 'release' ?

Well, I guess it could be renamed, but this has been named like that for
decades ? Why changing now, while this patch does not touch it ?