From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] nfsd: fix callback restarts
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:35:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150430203556.GA9509@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1430387365-24348-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
Looks good to me, just a changelog nit:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:49:24AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Checking the rpc_client pointer is not a reliable way to detect a backchannel
> connetion failure, as the likelyhood of reusing the same slab object is
> very high.
I don't think that's true, if it's this comparison you're talking about:
> @@ -907,16 +900,21 @@ static void nfsd4_cb_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
> clp->cl_cb_session->se_cb_seq_nr);
> }
>
> - if (clp->cl_cb_client != task->tk_client) {
> - /* We're shutting down or changing cl_cb_client; leave
> - * it to nfsd4_process_cb_update to restart the call if
> - * necessary. */
This is an rpc callback, so tk_client better still be allocated.
cl_cb_client too, since as far as I can tell that's never changed
without shutting down the rpc client first (which will wait for all
tasks to exit).
So I agree that this is wrong, but I think the reason it's actually
wrong is that the condition is just never true....
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-30 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-30 9:49 nfsd: callback fixes Christoph Hellwig
2015-04-30 9:49 ` [PATCH 1/3] nfsd: split transport vs operation errors for callbacks Christoph Hellwig
2015-04-30 14:24 ` J. Bruce Fields
2015-04-30 14:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-04-30 9:49 ` [PATCH 2/3] nfsd: fix callback restarts Christoph Hellwig
2015-04-30 20:35 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2015-05-01 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-04-30 9:49 ` [PATCH 3/3] nfsd: skip CB_NULL probes for 4.1 or later Christoph Hellwig
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=20150430203556.GA9509@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).