Re: [PATCH net 2/2] RDS: TCP: Synchrnozize accept() and connect() paths on t_conn_lock.

[Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>]

On 5/2/2016 9:43 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (05/02/16 09:33), Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&tc->t_conn_lock);
>> Just wondering whether the spin_lock() would better here considering
>> entry into rds_tcp_conn_connect() & rds_tcp_accept_one() might be
>> from softirq context. Ignore it if its not applicable.
>
> It's not from softirq context (both are workqs), but I used a mutex
> to follow c_cm_lock (which I considered reusing, given that it
> is only IB specific?) But spin_lock vs mutex may not be a big
> differentiator here- this is really a one-time start up (corner-case)
> issue in the control path.
>
That should be fine then.

>>> 	rds_conn_transition(conn, RDS_CONN_DOWN, RDS_CONN_CONNECTING);
>> Like patch 1/2, probably we can leverage return value of above.
>      :
>> You probably don't need the local 'conn_state' and below should work.
>> 	if (!rds_conn_connecting(conn) && !rds_conn_up(conn))
>
> see explanation for comment to 1/2.
>
Yep.

 > +rst_nsk:
 > +	/* rest the newly returned accept sock and bail */
s/rest/reset

With typo fixed,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>