On 8/30/22 9:28 PM, Haris Iqbal wrote:
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.
Thanks for the explanation, I am wondering if it makes sense to call rtrs_srv_resp_rdma when ret == 0, or let's just add a comment here. Thanks, Guoqing
