From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 DF93734D4D2; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769449699; cv=none; b=R2O7YX8Q8k+aKDSsHxCbkGcuKNSECpkkAG0cTMGL8oUxPa+Qg1HPCucfb0134o7/oRqnqCvlwabL++DsLfHfYzr5zAGmxHkslUun9tr+IJgDIqSl11xGUousTAOIQYF9A5UH/T174rFc4MdtCcbA7sjPwwLRjGm6sZdeziFge7Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769449699; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RsYSuliAGyXfu7amtjytPEnCvLsy+vVf24yR5uPC0pE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=EcJcd5ehyCMs/aFoIzVb3vamXBETSwV4CEIzL+uEyTTqFH77n245dVBNdpxPYYssvpKCK/ZojI5S45fI8J0z5mMTVe1oDDVajXPT+Arc7P1cEq+eZcQ89wHfg0m6XotEQvMBKy4SFf5wDJw0JV9sNstfRzosOElFMyYK0TbmcyE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dl5BnoZ7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="dl5BnoZ7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DF10C19425; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:48:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769449699; bh=RsYSuliAGyXfu7amtjytPEnCvLsy+vVf24yR5uPC0pE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dl5BnoZ7qaHOYO4trP9UdK5tV4uq7Y1inMJKubhuJiTUS262YQ4v6mxlWuCeLyq4d PAlzmBHIdZuLO/EGWJ6lHjsKa7BINJcs8pbHMp/gAD4947UQ+OMQB/2Ct9hMvhmGQS 7wDAxACL+XkjP/sM1jD3fHpHXJailvIsU9i0Tg3Pw5AvX7yjZK0Zqlw08An2wlJSiL Op7O/ke6q0tW/VbViZUveHmlS6hbOWjOP0eWcoph/4JO2BUtZ5Z6Jty6zRqQ6mWwrL CmZxSr9Ch8yeBGGJ2bzLgO2CMRVO4SvjzjUmE/6/wSq26j+wVbg28m69INzsDaIJfq d4Dn5wtw8VmUw== From: Simon Horman To: achender@kernel.org Cc: Simon Horman , allison.henderson@oracle.com, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org Subject: Re: [net-next,v1,7/7] net/rds: Trigger rds_send_ping() more than once Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:47:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20260126174754.1393215-1-horms@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260125070651.207042-8-achender@kernel.org> References: <20260125070651.207042-8-achender@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html --- net/rds: Trigger rds_send_ping() more than once This commit ensures that rds_send_ping() is triggered after reconnect to properly communicate path capabilities, especially after an RDS module reload. It also validates source port modulo during fan-out. > diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c > index ea3b57e9191b..8e7ece085ff1 100644 > --- a/net/rds/send.c > +++ b/net/rds/send.c > @@ -1328,6 +1328,23 @@ int rds_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t payload_len) > cpath = &conn->c_path[0]; > } > > + /* c_npaths == 0 if we have not talked to this peer > + * before. Initiate a connection request to the > + * peer right away. > + */ > + if (conn->c_trans->t_mp_capable && > + !rds_conn_path_up(&conn->c_path[0])) { This isn't a bug, but the comment says "c_npaths == 0" while the code checks "!rds_conn_path_up()". These conditions are different: c_npaths == 0 means no paths negotiated yet, while !rds_conn_path_up() is true for any state other than RDS_CONN_UP (DOWN, CONNECTING, DISCONNECTING, ERROR, RESETTING). The commit message mentions "after a re-connect to any peer" which aligns with the code, but the comment specifically mentions c_npaths which isn't checked. Should the comment be updated to reflect the actual logic? > + /* Ensures that only one request is queued. And > + * rds_send_ping() ensures that only one ping is > + * outstanding. > + */ [ ... ]