From: Norton.Zhu <norton.zhu@huawei.com>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: optimize error handling in dlm_request_join
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:54:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D684BD.9060705@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D606D9.20407@oracle.com>
Hi Srinivas,
Thanks for your advice, we should leave *response as JOIN_DISALLOW if packet.code is
invalid, I will resend the patch.
On 2015/8/21 0:56, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 04:50 AM, Norton.Zhu wrote:
>> Currently error handling in dlm_request_join is a little obscure.
>> So optimize it to promote readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Norton.Zhu <norton.zhu@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> index 7df88a6..af4f7aa 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> @@ -1465,39 +1465,44 @@ static int dlm_request_join(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>> if (status == -ENOPROTOOPT) {
>> status = 0;
>> *response = JOIN_OK_NO_MAP;
>> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_DISALLOW ||
>> - packet.code == JOIN_OK_NO_MAP) {
>> - *response = packet.code;
>> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH) {
>> - mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>> - "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
>> - "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u. At least one of "
>> - "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
>> - "disconnecting\n",
>> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> - node);
>> - status = -EPROTO;
>> - *response = packet.code;
>> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_OK) {
>> - *response = packet.code;
>> - /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
>> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
>> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
>> - mlog(0,
>> - "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
>> - "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
>> - node,
>> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
>> } else {
>> - status = -EINVAL;
>> - mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
>> - packet.code, node);
>> + *response = packet.code;
> Norton, it looks much better :)
>
> one minor comment. we don't want to reset "*response" with packet.code if it's unrecognized. We should leave the value to JOIN_DISALLOW;
>
> rest looks good.
>
>> + switch (packet.code) {
>> + case JOIN_DISALLOW:
>> + case JOIN_OK_NO_MAP:
>> + break;
>> + case JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH:
>> + mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>> + "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
>> + "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u. At least one of "
>> + "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
>> + "disconnecting\n",
>> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> + node);
>> + status = -EPROTO;
>> + break;
>> + case JOIN_OK:
>> + /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
>> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
>> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
>> + mlog(0,
>> + "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
>> + "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
>> + node,
>> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + status = -EINVAL;
>> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
>> + packet.code, node);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> mlog(0, "status %d, node %d response is %d\n", status, node,
>
>
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-21 1:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-20 11:50 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: optimize error handling in dlm_request_join Norton.Zhu
2015-08-20 12:42 ` Joseph Qi
2015-08-20 16:56 ` Srinivas Eeda
2015-08-21 1:54 ` Norton.Zhu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55D684BD.9060705@huawei.com \
--to=norton.zhu@huawei.com \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.