For readability, please remove the parentheses () for Relational operators, which have higher precedence than Logical operator. Also re-align.

Re-align.

For readability, please remove the parentheses () for Relational operators, which have higher precedence than Logical operator.

For readability, please remove the parentheses () for Relational operators, which have higher precedence than Logical operator.

For readability, please remove the parentheses () for Relational operators, which have higher precedence than Logical operator. Also re-align.

See style(9). Not everyone knows the exact precedence for all operators. There are many examples of extra (not strictly needed by the compiler) parenthesis, for ease of readability.
Also, a half-tab is the 2nd level indentation, with all subsequent clauses aligning to this.
For readability, I tend to have logical operators at the end of a line, so that the individual clauses are easier to see and not get drowned.

There are plenty of examples where the used indentation (full tab plus half-tab) is used for "} else if (foo)\n(bar)" constructs.

between

<------><------><------><------><------>} else if (tcp_is_sack_recovery(tp, &to) &&
<------><------><------><------><------><------>    IN_FASTRECOVERY(tp->t_flags) &&
<------><------><------><------><------><------>    SEQ_LT(tp->snd_nxt, tp->snd_max)) {

and

<------><------><------><------><------>} else if (tcp_is_sack_recovery(tp, &to) &&
<------><------><------><------><------>    IN_FASTRECOVERY(tp->t_flags) &&
<------><------><------><------><------>    SEQ_LT(tp->snd_nxt, tp->snd_max)) {

I think the former one is more readable.

This line should not be changed. A missing { caused compile error.

Let's keep a minimum change. If the priority of (len > tp->t_maxseg) is higher than others, just need to change this line, and leave the rest of the lines as they were. The rest of the changes are insignificant and can be left for future non-functional refresh.

Same here. Don't change anything on this line.

Unnecessary change, please leave the pair of {} as it was.

Duplicated code.

Realign? remember, the linter in upstream is not the one you are used to; and I like "bool" checks (TF_xx and TF2_xx) without fluff (!(foo) instead of (foo) != 0 - which I believe is covered by style(9). And let's agree to disagree what readability with extra parenthesis means - both ways seem to be ok by style; I like to make the precedence explict, and not rely on the implicit precedence ordering of operators which may be different between different languages.

Thanks. Seems when i split the original patch in two, I missed the comment - restoring that here.

Type of cwin should be int32_t, as it will be compared with other signed variables.

For readability, there is no need to combine the two lines into one.

Same here. For readability, there is no need to combine the two lines into one.

Can be simpler.

This line is not a necessary change.

Is imin() a better choice for consistence?

I think the result of a bitwise (e.g.&, |, ^, ~) operation is not boolean, although you may think C treats non-zero values as true and zero as false in conditional expressions like if, while, etc.

So style(9) still applies. :)

Do not use ! for tests unless it is a boolean // from style(9)

int result = 5 & 5;  // 5 is 0101
// Result is 0101 (5 in decimal)

Talking about this block of code, we can just leave as it was (don't change), as it is insignificant/non-functional change, and not related with the patch subject.

Looks to be no-op. Can we just add the comment without adding the no-op code? And please proof-reading the comment.

This line is still not reverted.

Either revert this line or use imin for consistence of the imin in the else clause as below.

len = imin(sbavail(&so->so_snd), sendwin) - off;

This block change is still not reverted.