From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 204073A1CD for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769694198; cv=none; b=pMGOBEV9ZR1TDjJ/hEgsMuAVJuC82BKd1F2cDLDwrYT/rhyRkdMXowk2QzdOeUw+y/eHbs4fwtn8RuvwiunyluJd9jSUnZaOUAP/+KyeBszAkpz8fw+TgPWFaj6XbmGtjwg2k8eqhBauKybWcfrumcNqHdAXpgJz1zN1C48GNSA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769694198; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nhqNTCDTUD49j0pZWGNXwmhDlM9COb2wLFllUo+LSm8=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Date:Message-ID; b=O37dYgq23qxPwHJyuM9betqeJ2aw6sUbbWLVU2p3Rx15m6QNkGO7MStMkL9SZZqJk1+qhtzANH/PAYdfLoIIIVrAA2q8kTvXTEeb8IMlrh12aivY967N2OT/hGazrd4z1yO99LQG/7paHbdaJH9LYk2hdw2B6gH7ABcFJLlcvnY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=JWl4mTHh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="JWl4mTHh" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1769694196; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZLKUtUm5065sq89vfcWLNBU/FPKK0LiPatUESAJe6tg=; b=JWl4mTHh540Mt2sD5mv5mMK6LsqJc9VX0o5MWSh2clSUdZdGnN+hz+8AJ79Unm9OlJ5uvq cg9Gic0ulJv5EDrTIHTeYiTBIBp8S8d75bi6HpH//P5ofDWYFIyOXu98dQyF1gYNAr5asZ iV4d4in3AVrEz8d4hH+uqtbC2+EmoKI= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-516-mnVeEMGrOkGmME9lO2RfRQ-1; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:43:12 -0500 X-MC-Unique: mnVeEMGrOkGmME9lO2RfRQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: mnVeEMGrOkGmME9lO2RfRQ_1769694191 Received: from mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944A118005A7; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.44.33.164]) by mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7995D1956048; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20260120062152.628822-1-sprasad@microsoft.com> <1652302.1769037531@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Shyam Prasad N Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, smfrench@gmail.com, pc@manguebit.com, bharathsm@microsoft.com, Shyam Prasad N Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] netfs: when subreq is marked for retry, do not check if it faced an error Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2226336.1769694188.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:43:08 +0000 Message-ID: <2226337.1769694188@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.17 Shyam Prasad N wrote: > > I think I suggested moving the check for NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY up in the > > function - above any checks of subreq->error, but after the initial stat > > counting. > > So you want to do this check regardless of whether there's an error or not? Yes. There's likely only to be a need to retry if there's been an error (though there is the possibility of the filesystem returning a short read, say, and needing a retry to complete it). In any case, we can make the setting of this flag up to the filesystem: does it think that a retry is warranted? > In that case, I think I'll still need to check if there is an error to > set NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE only on error, right? It needs to be set if a retry is requested as the retry thread will wait for outstanding ops to quiesce - and if more are still being generated, that's potentially a problem. And for AFS, for example, the need to do a retry might mean that we need to switch server - so we probably do want to throw a hold on further subrequest generation until we've probed the problem. David