[PATCH net-next 23/36] rxrpc: Don't use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to guard socket state changes

[David Howells]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---

 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);