Re: [PATCH 04/12] IB/srp: Fix connection state tracking

Sagi Grimberg
2015-05-05T09:45:03Z

On 5/5/2015 12:31 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 04/30/15 17:00, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>> On 4/30/2015 2:25 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 04/30/15 11:51, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2015 11:58 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>>> @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ struct srp_rdma_ch {
>>>>>
>>>>> struct completion tsk_mgmt_done;
>>>>> u8 tsk_mgmt_status;
>>>>> + bool connected;
>>>>
>>>> I generally agree with this flag, but I'm a bit confused about the
>>>> semantics of two connected flags? Also, we check the target connected
>>>> flag on TMFs, although we are executing it on a channel (should we
>>>> check both?)
>>>>
>>>> I'd say keep only the channel connected flag, the target logic needs to
>>>> be mandated by the state.
>>>
>>> I think we need both flags. The ch->connected flag is used only in
>>> srp_destroy_qp() to verify whether a channel has been disconnected
>>> before it is destroyed. The target->connected flag provides an easy way
>>> to test the connected state in e.g. srp_disconnect_target().
>>
>> We can just as easily check rport state. rport state is modified before
>> target-connected. I still think one is redundant.
>
> Sorry but I disagree. If e.g. both the fast_io_fail and dev_loss_tmo
> timers have been disabled then the rport state is SRP_RPORT_RUNNING all
> the time. At least in that case it is not possible to derive the
> target->connected state from the rport state.

Can't you rely on ch->connected for that?

We can keep both, but I just think that the meaning of
target->connected is confusing now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html