* [PATCH 03/44] nfsd41: change check_slot_seqid parameters @ 2009-06-16 1:19 Benny Halevy 2009-06-16 17:39 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Benny Halevy @ 2009-06-16 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bfields; +Cc: pnfs, linux-nfs From: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> For separation of session slot and clientid slot processing. Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com> --- fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 24 +++++++++++++----------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c index d5caf2a..c22ec9b 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c @@ -1313,26 +1313,26 @@ error: } static int -check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, struct nfsd4_slot *slot) +check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, u32 slot_seqid, int slot_inuse) { - dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot->sl_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, - slot->sl_seqid); + dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, + slot_seqid); /* The slot is in use, and no response has been sent. */ - if (slot->sl_inuse) { - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) + if (slot_inuse) { + if (seqid == slot_seqid) return nfserr_jukebox; else return nfserr_seq_misordered; } /* Normal */ - if (likely(seqid == slot->sl_seqid + 1)) + if (likely(seqid == slot_seqid + 1)) return nfs_ok; /* Replay */ - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) + if (seqid == slot_seqid) return nfserr_replay_cache; /* Wraparound */ - if (seqid == 1 && (slot->sl_seqid + 1) == 0) + if (seqid == 1 && (slot_seqid + 1) == 0) return nfs_ok; /* Misordered replay or misordered new request */ return nfserr_seq_misordered; @@ -1355,7 +1355,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, if (conf) { slot = &conf->cl_slot; - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, + slot->sl_inuse); if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { dprintk("Got a create_session replay! seqid= %d\n", slot->sl_seqid); @@ -1380,7 +1381,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, } slot = &unconf->cl_slot; - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, + slot->sl_inuse); if (status) { /* an unconfirmed replay returns misordered */ status = nfserr_seq_misordered; @@ -1481,7 +1483,7 @@ nfsd4_sequence(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, slot = &session->se_slots[seq->slotid]; dprintk("%s: slotid %d\n", __func__, seq->slotid); - status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot); + status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, slot->sl_inuse); if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { cstate->slot = slot; cstate->session = session; -- 1.6.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 03/44] nfsd41: change check_slot_seqid parameters 2009-06-16 1:19 [PATCH 03/44] nfsd41: change check_slot_seqid parameters Benny Halevy @ 2009-06-16 17:39 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-06-16 17:40 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-06-16 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Benny Halevy; +Cc: pnfs, linux-nfs On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 04:19:20AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > From: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> > > For separation of session slot and clientid slot processing. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> > Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com> This was actually already upstream, just not in my for-2.6.31, because I based my for-2.6.31 branch off of 2.6.30-rc3, and submitted this to 2.6.30 after -rc3. So my choices included: - Rebase for-2.6.31 onto a later -rc: but things will go smoother if I stop rebasing and rewriting my for-xxx branches, and I've stopped doing that this time around. - Apply an identical patch to for-2.6.31 at the same time I submit it upstream: then after I submit for-2.6.31, the history would end up with two commits each for the same patch. I don't think that's a serious problem, but it seems ugly. - Merge upstream back into my for-2.6.31 after submitting patches: Linus has complained before about people doing this too much, but I'm assuming doing it in a case like this where there's a clear reason is OK. I think option 3 was the right one; so I've done that now and merged 2.6.30 back into for-2.6.31.... Better might have been to merge a for-2.6.30 branch into for-2.6.31. --b. > --- > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 24 +++++++++++++----------- > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > index d5caf2a..c22ec9b 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > @@ -1313,26 +1313,26 @@ error: > } > > static int > -check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, struct nfsd4_slot *slot) > +check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, u32 slot_seqid, int slot_inuse) > { > - dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot->sl_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, > - slot->sl_seqid); > + dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, > + slot_seqid); > > /* The slot is in use, and no response has been sent. */ > - if (slot->sl_inuse) { > - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) > + if (slot_inuse) { > + if (seqid == slot_seqid) > return nfserr_jukebox; > else > return nfserr_seq_misordered; > } > /* Normal */ > - if (likely(seqid == slot->sl_seqid + 1)) > + if (likely(seqid == slot_seqid + 1)) > return nfs_ok; > /* Replay */ > - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) > + if (seqid == slot_seqid) > return nfserr_replay_cache; > /* Wraparound */ > - if (seqid == 1 && (slot->sl_seqid + 1) == 0) > + if (seqid == 1 && (slot_seqid + 1) == 0) > return nfs_ok; > /* Misordered replay or misordered new request */ > return nfserr_seq_misordered; > @@ -1355,7 +1355,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > > if (conf) { > slot = &conf->cl_slot; > - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); > + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, > + slot->sl_inuse); > if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { > dprintk("Got a create_session replay! seqid= %d\n", > slot->sl_seqid); > @@ -1380,7 +1381,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > } > > slot = &unconf->cl_slot; > - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); > + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, > + slot->sl_inuse); > if (status) { > /* an unconfirmed replay returns misordered */ > status = nfserr_seq_misordered; > @@ -1481,7 +1483,7 @@ nfsd4_sequence(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > slot = &session->se_slots[seq->slotid]; > dprintk("%s: slotid %d\n", __func__, seq->slotid); > > - status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot); > + status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, slot->sl_inuse); > if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { > cstate->slot = slot; > cstate->session = session; > -- > 1.6.3 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 03/44] nfsd41: change check_slot_seqid parameters 2009-06-16 17:39 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-06-16 17:40 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-06-16 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Benny Halevy; +Cc: pnfs, linux-nfs On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:39:51PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 04:19:20AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > > From: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> > > > > For separation of session slot and clientid slot processing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com> > > Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com> > > This was actually already upstream, just not in my for-2.6.31, because I > based my for-2.6.31 branch off of 2.6.30-rc3, and submitted this to > 2.6.30 after -rc3. So my choices included: > > - Rebase for-2.6.31 onto a later -rc: but things will go > smoother if I stop rebasing and rewriting my for-xxx branches, > and I've stopped doing that this time around. > - Apply an identical patch to for-2.6.31 at the same time I > submit it upstream: then after I submit for-2.6.31, the > history would end up with two commits each for the same patch. > I don't think that's a serious problem, but it seems ugly. > - Merge upstream back into my for-2.6.31 after submitting > patches: Linus has complained before about people doing this > too much, but I'm assuming doing it in a case like this where > there's a clear reason is OK. > > I think option 3 was the right one; so I've done that now and merged > 2.6.30 back into for-2.6.31.... > > Better might have been to merge a for-2.6.30 branch into for-2.6.31. Um. I meant to respond to 02/44, not 03/44, here! --b. > > --b. > > > --- > > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 24 +++++++++++++----------- > > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > > index d5caf2a..c22ec9b 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > > @@ -1313,26 +1313,26 @@ error: > > } > > > > static int > > -check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, struct nfsd4_slot *slot) > > +check_slot_seqid(u32 seqid, u32 slot_seqid, int slot_inuse) > > { > > - dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot->sl_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, > > - slot->sl_seqid); > > + dprintk("%s enter. seqid %d slot_seqid %d\n", __func__, seqid, > > + slot_seqid); > > > > /* The slot is in use, and no response has been sent. */ > > - if (slot->sl_inuse) { > > - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) > > + if (slot_inuse) { > > + if (seqid == slot_seqid) > > return nfserr_jukebox; > > else > > return nfserr_seq_misordered; > > } > > /* Normal */ > > - if (likely(seqid == slot->sl_seqid + 1)) > > + if (likely(seqid == slot_seqid + 1)) > > return nfs_ok; > > /* Replay */ > > - if (seqid == slot->sl_seqid) > > + if (seqid == slot_seqid) > > return nfserr_replay_cache; > > /* Wraparound */ > > - if (seqid == 1 && (slot->sl_seqid + 1) == 0) > > + if (seqid == 1 && (slot_seqid + 1) == 0) > > return nfs_ok; > > /* Misordered replay or misordered new request */ > > return nfserr_seq_misordered; > > @@ -1355,7 +1355,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > > > > if (conf) { > > slot = &conf->cl_slot; > > - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); > > + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, > > + slot->sl_inuse); > > if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { > > dprintk("Got a create_session replay! seqid= %d\n", > > slot->sl_seqid); > > @@ -1380,7 +1381,8 @@ nfsd4_create_session(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > > } > > > > slot = &unconf->cl_slot; > > - status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot); > > + status = check_slot_seqid(cr_ses->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, > > + slot->sl_inuse); > > if (status) { > > /* an unconfirmed replay returns misordered */ > > status = nfserr_seq_misordered; > > @@ -1481,7 +1483,7 @@ nfsd4_sequence(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > > slot = &session->se_slots[seq->slotid]; > > dprintk("%s: slotid %d\n", __func__, seq->slotid); > > > > - status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot); > > + status = check_slot_seqid(seq->seqid, slot->sl_seqid, slot->sl_inuse); > > if (status == nfserr_replay_cache) { > > cstate->slot = slot; > > cstate->session = session; > > -- > > 1.6.3 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-16 17:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-06-16 1:19 [PATCH 03/44] nfsd41: change check_slot_seqid parameters Benny Halevy 2009-06-16 17:39 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-06-16 17:40 ` J. Bruce Fields
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox