Re: [PATCH 1/3] rnbd-srv: fix the return value of rnbd_srv_rdma_ev

[Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>]

On 8/30/22 9:28 PM, Haris Iqbal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 2:39 PM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> Since process_msg_open could fail, we should return 'ret'
>> instead of '0' at the end of function.
>>
>> Fixes: 2de6c8de192b ("block/rnbd: server: main functionality")
>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>>   drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
>> index 3f6c268e04ef..9182d45cb9be 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
>> @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int rnbd_srv_rdma_ev(void *priv,
>>          }
>>
>>          rtrs_srv_resp_rdma(id, ret);
>> -       return 0;
>> +       return ret;
> I think the point here was to process the failure through
> rtrs_srv_resp_rdma() function. If you notice how the return of rdma_ev
> is processed by RTRS, in case of a failure return; it tries to send a
> response back through send_io_resp_imm(). Same would happen in the
> function rtrs_srv_resp_rdma().
>
> If we call rtrs_srv_resp_rdma() with the error, and return the err
> back to the caller of rdma_ev, we may end up sending err response more
> than once.

Thanks for the explanation, I am wondering if it makes sense to call
rtrs_srv_resp_rdma when ret == 0, or let's just add a comment here.

Thanks,
Guoqing