On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 2:39 PM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Since process_msg_open could fail, we should return 'ret'
> instead of '0' at the end of function.
>
> Fixes: 2de6c8de192b ("block/rnbd: server: main functionality")
> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
> index 3f6c268e04ef..9182d45cb9be 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-srv.c
> @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ static int rnbd_srv_rdma_ev(void *priv,
> }
>
> rtrs_srv_resp_rdma(id, ret);
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
I think the point here was to process the failure through
rtrs_srv_resp_rdma() function. If you notice how the return of rdma_ev
is processed by RTRS, in case of a failure return; it tries to send a
response back through send_io_resp_imm(). Same would happen in the
function rtrs_srv_resp_rdma().
If we call rtrs_srv_resp_rdma() with the error, and return the err
back to the caller of rdma_ev, we may end up sending err response more
than once.
> }
>
> static struct rnbd_srv_sess_dev
> --
> 2.34.1
>
