[PATCH] knfsd: remove unnecessary BUG_ON's

[PATCH] knfsd: remove unnecessary BUG_ON's

[J. Bruce Fields]

Trivial patch, but--any objection to removing these assertions?

We set svsk->sk_pool = pool just 30-some lines above, and there's no
obvious reason this should have changed, or any other particular reason
to assert this here.

Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
---
 net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
index 12ff5da..d064879 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
@@ -298,12 +298,10 @@ svc_sock_enqueue(struct svc_sock *svsk)
 		atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse);
 		rqstp->rq_reserved = serv->sv_max_mesg;
 		atomic_add(rqstp->rq_reserved, &svsk->sk_reserved);
-		BUG_ON(svsk->sk_pool != pool);
 		wake_up(&rqstp->rq_wait);
 	} else {
 		dprintk("svc: socket %p put into queue\n", svsk->sk_sk);
 		list_add_tail(&svsk->sk_ready, &pool->sp_sockets);
-		BUG_ON(svsk->sk_pool != pool);
 	}
 
 out_unlock:
-- 
1.5.3.1.40.g6972


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: [PATCH] knfsd: remove unnecessary BUG_ON's

[Greg Banks]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:43:17PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Trivial patch, but--any objection to removing these assertions?
> 
> We set svsk->sk_pool = pool just 30-some lines above, and there's no
> obvious reason this should have changed, or any other particular reason
> to assert this here.

Yeah, you'd think that.  However we saw these BUG_ON()s tripped
when attempting to port the 2.6.18-based NFS/RDMA patches to a
2.6.19-like kernel.  All it takes is for some transport code to get
confused about the proper way to clear SK_BUSY, and *blam*.  So I
think they're useful.

Greg.
-- 
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
Apparently, I'm Bedevere.  Which MPHG character are you?
I don't speak for SGI.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: [PATCH] knfsd: remove unnecessary BUG_ON's

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:40:58AM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:43:17PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Trivial patch, but--any objection to removing these assertions?
> > 
> > We set svsk->sk_pool = pool just 30-some lines above, and there's no
> > obvious reason this should have changed, or any other particular reason
> > to assert this here.
> 
> Yeah, you'd think that.  However we saw these BUG_ON()s tripped
> when attempting to port the 2.6.18-based NFS/RDMA patches to a
> 2.6.19-like kernel.  All it takes is for some transport code to get
> confused about the proper way to clear SK_BUSY, and *blam*.  So I
> think they're useful.

OK, I'll take your word for it--dropped.  (But, I'm just curious--do you
remember what the sequence of events was?)

--b.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: [PATCH] knfsd: remove unnecessary BUG_ON's

[Greg Banks]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:13PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:40:58AM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:43:17PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > Trivial patch, but--any objection to removing these assertions?
> > > 
> > > We set svsk->sk_pool = pool just 30-some lines above, and there's no
> > > obvious reason this should have changed, or any other particular reason
> > > to assert this here.
> > 
> > Yeah, you'd think that.  However we saw these BUG_ON()s tripped
> > when attempting to port the 2.6.18-based NFS/RDMA patches to a
> > 2.6.19-like kernel.  All it takes is for some transport code to get
> > confused about the proper way to clear SK_BUSY, and *blam*.  So I
> > think they're useful.
> 
> OK, I'll take your word for it--dropped.  (But, I'm just curious--do you
> remember what the sequence of events was?)

It's been a while, but IIRC the new transport code had copied out the
internals of svc_request_received() pre .19, and were manually clearing
SK_BUSY and calling svc_sock_enqueue().  In .19 when sk_pool was added,
svc_request_received() began setting sk_pool to NULL, and the transport
code wasn't doing that.  Or maybe that was a different failure mode ;-)

Greg.
-- 
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
Apparently, I'm Bedevere.  Which MPHG character are you?
I don't speak for SGI.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs