* [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
@ 2026-08-19 17:30 Manjunath Patil
2026-08-20 11:13 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Manjunath Patil @ 2026-08-19 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trond Myklebust, Anna Schumaker
Cc: linux-nfs, Chuck Lever, Jeff Layton, NeilBrown, Olga Kornievskaia,
Dai Ngo, Tom Talpey, Manjunath Patil
The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and
server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side
response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting,
or using a different connection.
Include the RPC client id, transport id, current transport connection
cookie, and RPC task owner in the ratelimited timeout messages. These
fields provide a compact way to correlate a timeout message with
rpcctl and other transport state.
For example, an NFS timeout reports:
nfs: server 192.168.50.1 clid=4 xprt=1 cc=1 owner=6245
not responding, timed out
Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
Signed-off-by: Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com>
---
net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
index efa26899bc7d..6b5e2787dc81 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
@@ -2534,17 +2534,21 @@ static void
rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
{
struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
+ struct rpc_rqst *req;
+ struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
if (RPC_SIGNALLED(task))
return;
- if (xprt_adjust_timeout(task->tk_rqstp) == 0)
+ req = task->tk_rqstp;
+ if (xprt_adjust_timeout(req) == 0)
return;
+ xprt = req->rq_xprt;
trace_rpc_timeout_status(task);
task->tk_timeouts++;
- if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp)) {
+ if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(req)) {
rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
return;
}
@@ -2556,14 +2560,15 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
* connection gets terminally broken.
*/
if ((task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT) &&
- rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp))
+ rpc_check_connected(req))
return;
if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
pr_notice_ratelimited(
- "%s: server %s not responding, timed out\n",
+ "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, timed out\n",
clnt->cl_program->name,
- task->tk_xprt->servername);
+ xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
+ READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
}
if (task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_TIMEOUT)
rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
@@ -2576,9 +2581,10 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
task->tk_flags |= RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN;
if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
pr_notice_ratelimited(
- "%s: server %s not responding, still trying\n",
+ "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, still trying\n",
clnt->cl_program->name,
- task->tk_xprt->servername);
+ xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
+ READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
}
}
rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
--
2.47.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
2026-08-19 17:30 [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics Manjunath Patil
@ 2026-08-20 11:13 ` Petr Vorel
2026-08-20 16:15 ` manjunath.b.patil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2026-08-20 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: manjunath.b.patil
Cc: Dai.Ngo, anna, cel, jlayton, linux-nfs, neil, okorniev, tom,
trondmy, Petr Vorel
> The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and
> server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side
> response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting,
> or using a different connection.
>
> Include the RPC client id, transport id, current transport connection
> cookie, and RPC task owner in the ratelimited timeout messages. These
> fields provide a compact way to correlate a timeout message with
> rpcctl and other transport state.
>
> For example, an NFS timeout reports:
>
> nfs: server 192.168.50.1 clid=4 xprt=1 cc=1 owner=6245
> not responding, timed out
Nice improvement, thanks!
>
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
> Signed-off-by: Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> index efa26899bc7d..6b5e2787dc81 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> @@ -2534,17 +2534,21 @@ static void
> rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> {
> struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
> + struct rpc_rqst *req;
> + struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
nit: Would it work to assign req and task earlier (just readability?)
Or is it not safe before checking RPC_SIGNALLED(task)?
struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
struct rpc_xprt *xprt = req->rq_xprt;
The rest LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Kind regards,
Petr
>
> if (RPC_SIGNALLED(task))
> return;
>
> - if (xprt_adjust_timeout(task->tk_rqstp) == 0)
> + req = task->tk_rqstp;
> + if (xprt_adjust_timeout(req) == 0)
> return;
> + xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>
> trace_rpc_timeout_status(task);
> task->tk_timeouts++;
>
> - if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp)) {
> + if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(req)) {
> rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
> return;
> }
> @@ -2556,14 +2560,15 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> * connection gets terminally broken.
> */
> if ((task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT) &&
> - rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp))
> + rpc_check_connected(req))
> return;
>
> if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
> pr_notice_ratelimited(
> - "%s: server %s not responding, timed out\n",
> + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, timed out\n",
> clnt->cl_program->name,
> - task->tk_xprt->servername);
> + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
> + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
> }
> if (task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_TIMEOUT)
> rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
> @@ -2576,9 +2581,10 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> task->tk_flags |= RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN;
> if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
> pr_notice_ratelimited(
> - "%s: server %s not responding, still trying\n",
> + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, still trying\n",
> clnt->cl_program->name,
> - task->tk_xprt->servername);
> + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
> + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
> }
> }
> rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
2026-08-20 11:13 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2026-08-20 16:15 ` manjunath.b.patil
2026-08-20 18:59 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: manjunath.b.patil @ 2026-08-20 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vorel
Cc: Dai.Ngo, anna, cel, jlayton, linux-nfs, neil, okorniev, tom,
trondmy
On 8/20/26 4:13 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and >
> server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side >
> response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting, > or
> using a different
>
>
>> The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and
>> server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side
>> response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting,
>> or using a different connection.
>>
>> Include the RPC client id, transport id, current transport connection
>> cookie, and RPC task owner in the ratelimited timeout messages. These
>> fields provide a compact way to correlate a timeout message with
>> rpcctl and other transport state.
>>
>> For example, an NFS timeout reports:
>>
>> nfs: server 192.168.50.1 clid=4 xprt=1 cc=1 owner=6245
>> not responding, timed out
>
> Nice improvement, thanks!
>
>>
>> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
>> Signed-off-by: Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> index efa26899bc7d..6b5e2787dc81 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> @@ -2534,17 +2534,21 @@ static void
>> rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> {
>> struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
>> + struct rpc_rqst *req;
>> + struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
>
> nit: Would it work to assign req and task earlier (just readability?)
> Or is it not safe before checking RPC_SIGNALLED(task)?
>
> struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
> struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
> struct rpc_xprt *xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>
> The rest LGTM.
> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
Hi Petr,
Thanks for the review and the Reviewed-by tag.
I kept the assignments after RPC_SIGNALLED(task) intentionally,
preserving the existing behavior where a signalled task returns before
we dereference task->tk_rqstp. xprt is also needed only after
xprt_adjust_timeout(req) reports an expired timeout.
I would prefer to retain the current ordering for those reasons. Also I
am open if maintainers chose to alter it.
Thanks,
Manjunath
>
>
>>
>> if (RPC_SIGNALLED(task))
>> return;
>>
>> - if (xprt_adjust_timeout(task->tk_rqstp) == 0)
>> + req = task->tk_rqstp;
>> + if (xprt_adjust_timeout(req) == 0)
>> return;
>> + xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>>
>> trace_rpc_timeout_status(task);
>> task->tk_timeouts++;
>>
>> - if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp)) {
>> + if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(req)) {
>> rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
>> return;
>> }
>> @@ -2556,14 +2560,15 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> * connection gets terminally broken.
>> */
>> if ((task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT) &&
>> - rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp))
>> + rpc_check_connected(req))
>> return;
>>
>> if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
>> pr_notice_ratelimited(
>> - "%s: server %s not responding, timed out\n",
>> + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, timed out\n",
>> clnt->cl_program->name,
>> - task->tk_xprt->servername);
>> + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
>> + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
>> }
>> if (task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_TIMEOUT)
>> rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
>> @@ -2576,9 +2581,10 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> task->tk_flags |= RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN;
>> if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
>> pr_notice_ratelimited(
>> - "%s: server %s not responding, still trying\n",
>> + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, still trying\n",
>> clnt->cl_program->name,
>> - task->tk_xprt->servername);
>> + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
>> + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
>> }
>> }
>> rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
2026-08-20 16:15 ` manjunath.b.patil
@ 2026-08-20 18:59 ` Petr Vorel
2026-08-31 19:33 ` manjunath.b.patil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2026-08-20 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: manjunath.b.patil
Cc: Dai.Ngo, anna, cel, jlayton, linux-nfs, neil, okorniev, tom,
trondmy
> On 8/20/26 4:13 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and >
> > server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side >
> > response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting, > or
> > using a different
> > > The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and
> > > server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side
> > > response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting,
> > > or using a different connection.
> > > Include the RPC client id, transport id, current transport connection
> > > cookie, and RPC task owner in the ratelimited timeout messages. These
> > > fields provide a compact way to correlate a timeout message with
> > > rpcctl and other transport state.
> > > For example, an NFS timeout reports:
> > > nfs: server 192.168.50.1 clid=4 xprt=1 cc=1 owner=6245
> > > not responding, timed out
> > Nice improvement, thanks!
> > > Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
> > > Signed-off-by: Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> > > index efa26899bc7d..6b5e2787dc81 100644
> > > --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> > > @@ -2534,17 +2534,21 @@ static void
> > > rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> > > {
> > > struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
> > > + struct rpc_rqst *req;
> > > + struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
> > nit: Would it work to assign req and task earlier (just readability?)
> > Or is it not safe before checking RPC_SIGNALLED(task)?
> > struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
> > struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
> > struct rpc_xprt *xprt = req->rq_xprt;
> > The rest LGTM.
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> Hi Petr,
Hi Manjunath,
> Thanks for the review and the Reviewed-by tag.
yw.
> I kept the assignments after RPC_SIGNALLED(task) intentionally, preserving
> the existing behavior where a signalled task returns before we dereference
> task->tk_rqstp. xprt is also needed only after xprt_adjust_timeout(req)
> reports an expired timeout.
Understand, fair enough.
> I would prefer to retain the current ordering for those reasons. Also I am
> open if maintainers chose to alter it.
+1
Kind regards,
Petr
> Thanks, Manjunath
> > > if (RPC_SIGNALLED(task))
> > > return;
> > > - if (xprt_adjust_timeout(task->tk_rqstp) == 0)
> > > + req = task->tk_rqstp;
> > > + if (xprt_adjust_timeout(req) == 0)
> > > return;
> > > + xprt = req->rq_xprt;
> > > trace_rpc_timeout_status(task);
> > > task->tk_timeouts++;
> > > - if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp)) {
> > > + if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(req)) {
> > > rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > @@ -2556,14 +2560,15 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> > > * connection gets terminally broken.
> > > */
> > > if ((task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT) &&
> > > - rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp))
> > > + rpc_check_connected(req))
> > > return;
> > > if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
> > > pr_notice_ratelimited(
> > > - "%s: server %s not responding, timed out\n",
> > > + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, timed out\n",
> > > clnt->cl_program->name,
> > > - task->tk_xprt->servername);
> > > + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
> > > + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
> > > }
> > > if (task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_TIMEOUT)
> > > rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
> > > @@ -2576,9 +2581,10 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
> > > task->tk_flags |= RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN;
> > > if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
> > > pr_notice_ratelimited(
> > > - "%s: server %s not responding, still trying\n",
> > > + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, still trying\n",
> > > clnt->cl_program->name,
> > > - task->tk_xprt->servername);
> > > + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
> > > + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
2026-08-20 18:59 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2026-08-31 19:33 ` manjunath.b.patil
2026-08-31 21:13 ` Chuck Lever
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: manjunath.b.patil @ 2026-08-31 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Vorel
Cc: Dai.Ngo, anna, cel, jlayton, linux-nfs, neil, okorniev, tom,
trondmy
On 8/20/26 11:59 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > On 8/20/26 4: 13 AM, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > The existing RPC timeout
> messages identify only the RPC program and > > > server name. That makes
> it difficult to distinguish a server-side > > > response stall from
>
>
>> On 8/20/26 4:13 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
>> > > The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and >
>> > server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side >
>> > response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting, > or
>> > using a different
>
>
>> > > The existing RPC timeout messages identify only the RPC program and
>> > > server name. That makes it difficult to distinguish a server-side
>> > > response stall from a transport that is disconnected, reconnecting,
>> > > or using a different connection.
>
>> > > Include the RPC client id, transport id, current transport connection
>> > > cookie, and RPC task owner in the ratelimited timeout messages. These
>> > > fields provide a compact way to correlate a timeout message with
>> > > rpcctl and other transport state.
>
>> > > For example, an NFS timeout reports:
>
>> > > nfs: server 192.168.50.1 clid=4 xprt=1 cc=1 owner=6245
>> > > not responding, timed out
>
>> > Nice improvement, thanks!
>
>
>> > > Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
>> > > Signed-off-by: Manjunath Patil <manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
>> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> > > index efa26899bc7d..6b5e2787dc81 100644
>> > > --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>> > > @@ -2534,17 +2534,21 @@ static void
>> > > rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> > > {
>> > > struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
>> > > + struct rpc_rqst *req;
>> > > + struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
>
>> > nit: Would it work to assign req and task earlier (just readability?)
>> > Or is it not safe before checking RPC_SIGNALLED(task)?
>
>> > struct rpc_clnt *clnt = task->tk_client;
>> > struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
>> > struct rpc_xprt *xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>
>> > The rest LGTM.
>> > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>
Hi Trond, Anna, and Chuck,
Could you please let me know the next steps for this patch submission?
Should I wait longer for review, or are there any formatting or
submission issues that I need to fix?
I also noticed that the Patchwork event shows the patch as "Not Applicable":
https://patchwork.kernel.org/api/1.2/events/?patch=14757794
Could you clarify what that means for this submission?
Thanks,
Manjunath
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Petr
>
>> Hi Petr,
>
> Hi Manjunath,
>
>> Thanks for the review and the Reviewed-by tag.
>
> yw.
>
>> I kept the assignments after RPC_SIGNALLED(task) intentionally, preserving
>> the existing behavior where a signalled task returns before we dereference
>> task->tk_rqstp. xprt is also needed only after xprt_adjust_timeout(req)
>> reports an expired timeout.
>
> Understand, fair enough.
>
>> I would prefer to retain the current ordering for those reasons. Also I am
>> open if maintainers chose to alter it.
>
> +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>> Thanks, Manjunath
>
>
>> > > if (RPC_SIGNALLED(task))
>> > > return;
>> > > - if (xprt_adjust_timeout(task->tk_rqstp) == 0)
>> > > + req = task->tk_rqstp;
>> > > + if (xprt_adjust_timeout(req) == 0)
>> > > return;
>> > > + xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>> > > trace_rpc_timeout_status(task);
>> > > task->tk_timeouts++;
>> > > - if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp)) {
>> > > + if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task) && !rpc_check_connected(req)) {
>> > > rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
>> > > return;
>> > > }
>> > > @@ -2556,14 +2560,15 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> > > * connection gets terminally broken.
>> > > */
>> > > if ((task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT) &&
>> > > - rpc_check_connected(task->tk_rqstp))
>> > > + rpc_check_connected(req))
>> > > return;
>> > > if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
>> > > pr_notice_ratelimited(
>> > > - "%s: server %s not responding, timed out\n",
>> > > + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, timed out\n",
>> > > clnt->cl_program->name,
>> > > - task->tk_xprt->servername);
>> > > + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
>> > > + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
>> > > }
>> > > if (task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_TIMEOUT)
>> > > rpc_call_rpcerror(task, -ETIMEDOUT);
>> > > @@ -2576,9 +2581,10 @@ rpc_check_timeout(struct rpc_task *task)
>> > > task->tk_flags |= RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN;
>> > > if (clnt->cl_chatty) {
>> > > pr_notice_ratelimited(
>> > > - "%s: server %s not responding, still trying\n",
>> > > + "%s: server %s clid=%u xprt=%u cc=%u owner=%d not responding, still trying\n",
>> > > clnt->cl_program->name,
>> > > - task->tk_xprt->servername);
>> > > + xprt->servername, clnt->cl_clid, xprt->id,
>> > > + READ_ONCE(xprt->connect_cookie), task->tk_owner);
>> > > }
>> > > }
>> > > rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics
2026-08-31 19:33 ` manjunath.b.patil
@ 2026-08-31 21:13 ` Chuck Lever
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Lever @ 2026-08-31 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: manjunath.b.patil, Petr Vorel
Cc: Dai Ngo, Anna Schumaker, Jeff Layton, linux-nfs, NeilBrown,
Olga Kornievskaia, Tom Talpey, Trond Myklebust
On Mon, Aug 31, 2026, at 3:33 PM, manjunath.b.patil@oracle.com wrote:
> I also noticed that the Patchwork event shows the patch as "Not Applicable":
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/api/1.2/events/?patch=14757794
>
> Could you clarify what that means for this submission?
The kernel patchwork service applies only to NFSD. Your patch is for
the Linux NFS client, so it’s “Not Applicable” to NFSD. The NFS
client maintainers need to respond to your review request.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-31 21:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-19 17:30 [PATCH] SUNRPC: add transport details to timeout diagnostics Manjunath Patil
2026-08-20 11:13 ` Petr Vorel
2026-08-20 16:15 ` manjunath.b.patil
2026-08-20 18:59 ` Petr Vorel
2026-08-31 19:33 ` manjunath.b.patil
2026-08-31 21:13 ` Chuck Lever
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.