Linux ocfs2 filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Norton.Zhu <norton.zhu@huawei.com>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: optimize error handling in dlm_request_join
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:54:05 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D684BD.9060705@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D606D9.20407@oracle.com>

Hi Srinivas,
Thanks for your advice, we should leave *response as JOIN_DISALLOW if packet.code is
invalid, I will resend the patch.

On 2015/8/21 0:56, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 04:50 AM, Norton.Zhu wrote:
>> Currently error handling in dlm_request_join is a little obscure.
>> So optimize it to promote readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Norton.Zhu <norton.zhu@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> index 7df88a6..af4f7aa 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>> @@ -1465,39 +1465,44 @@ static int dlm_request_join(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>>       if (status == -ENOPROTOOPT) {
>>           status = 0;
>>           *response = JOIN_OK_NO_MAP;
>> -    } else if (packet.code == JOIN_DISALLOW ||
>> -           packet.code == JOIN_OK_NO_MAP) {
>> -        *response = packet.code;
>> -    } else if (packet.code == JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH) {
>> -        mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>> -             "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
>> -             "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u.  At least one of "
>> -             "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
>> -             "disconnecting\n",
>> -             dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> -             dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> -             dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> -             dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> -             node);
>> -        status = -EPROTO;
>> -        *response = packet.code;
>> -    } else if (packet.code == JOIN_OK) {
>> -        *response = packet.code;
>> -        /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
>> -        dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
>> -        dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
>> -        mlog(0,
>> -             "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
>> -             "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
>> -             node,
>> -             dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> -             dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> -             dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> -             dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
>>       } else {
>> -        status = -EINVAL;
>> -        mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
>> -             packet.code, node);
>> +        *response = packet.code;
> Norton, it looks much better :)
> 
> one minor comment. we don't want to reset "*response" with packet.code if it's unrecognized. We should leave the value to JOIN_DISALLOW;
> 
> rest looks good.
> 
>> +        switch (packet.code) {
>> +        case JOIN_DISALLOW:
>> +        case JOIN_OK_NO_MAP:
>> +            break;
>> +        case JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH:
>> +            mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>> +                 "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
>> +                 "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u.  At least one of "
>> +                 "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
>> +                 "disconnecting\n",
>> +                 dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> +                 dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> +                 dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> +                 dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> +                 node);
>> +            status = -EPROTO;
>> +            break;
>> +        case JOIN_OK:
>> +            /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
>> +            dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
>> +            dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
>> +            mlog(0,
>> +                 "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
>> +                 "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
>> +                 node,
>> +                 dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> +                 dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
>> +                 dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
>> +                 dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
>> +            break;
>> +        default:
>> +            status = -EINVAL;
>> +            mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
>> +                 packet.code, node);
>> +            break;
>> +        }
>>       }
>>
>>       mlog(0, "status %d, node %d response is %d\n", status, node,
> 
> 
> .
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2015-08-21  1:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-20 11:50 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: optimize error handling in dlm_request_join Norton.Zhu
2015-08-20 12:42 ` Joseph Qi
2015-08-20 16:56 ` Srinivas Eeda
2015-08-21  1:54   ` Norton.Zhu [this message]

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=55D684BD.9060705@huawei.com \
    --to=norton.zhu@huawei.com \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.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