Re: [PATCH 1/2] NFSv4: Handle fatal ENETDOWN and ENETUNREACH errors

[Trond Myklebust <trondmy@kernel.org>]

On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 09:08 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 11:11 +0200, trondmy@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
> > 
> > Ensure that the NFSv4 error handling code recognises the
> > RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL flag, and handles the ENETDOWN and
> > ENETUNREACH
> > errors accordingly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task
> > *task, struct nfs_server *server,
> >  	struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > +	if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN ||
> > +	     task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) &&
> > +	    task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) {
> > +		exception->retry = 0;
> > +		exception->recovering = 0;
> > +		exception->retry = 0;
> 
> Why set exception->retry twice?

Oops. That last one is supposed to be exception->delay = 0

Thanks for noticing!

> 
> > +		return -EIO;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode,
> > exception);
> >  	if (exception->delay) {
> >  		int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server,
> > exception);
> 
> Other than that, this looks sane.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>