From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: root@chaos.analogic.com
Cc: Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>, Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new timeout behavior for RPC requests on TCP sockets
Date: 14 Nov 2002 16:41:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <shsd6p8qhul.fsf@charged.uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1021113133354.2518B-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
>>>>> " " == Richard B Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> writes:
> The Client is the guy that just retries, as you say from a
> time-out. This shouldn't affect any internal TCP/IP code. The
> time-out is at the application (client) level. It sent a
> request, the data was sent or promised to be sent because the
> write() or send() didn't block, now it expects to get the data
> it asked for. It waits, nothing happens. It times-out and sends
> the exact same request again.
Huh??? There's no 'application level' involved here at all, nor any
'internal TCP/IP code'.
Chuck's patch touches the way the kernel Sun RPC client code (as used
exclusively by the kernel NFS client and the kernel NLM client)
handles the generic case of message timeout + resend. Why would we
want to even consider pushing that sort of thing down into the NFS
code itself?
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-14 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-12 23:48 [PATCH] new timeout behavior for RPC requests on TCP sockets Dan Kegel
2002-11-13 15:58 ` Chuck Lever
2002-11-13 16:44 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-11-13 16:49 ` Trond Myklebust
2002-11-13 18:38 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-11-14 15:41 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2002-11-14 18:36 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-11-14 19:33 ` Trond Myklebust
2002-11-14 20:26 ` Chuck Lever
2002-11-14 20:37 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-11-14 21:05 ` Chuck Lever
2002-11-13 17:42 ` Alan Cox
2002-11-13 18:33 ` Richard B. Johnson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-26 19:57 Chuck Lever
2002-11-12 23:15 Chuck Lever
2002-11-12 23:15 ` Chuck Lever
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=shsd6p8qhul.fsf@charged.uio.no \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=dank@kegel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=root@chaos.analogic.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.