On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:52 PM Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/11/2023 4:01 AM, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 1:19 AM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> should this be a warn once? Could it get very noisy? > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:47 PM Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> We've seen the in-flight count go into negative with some > >>> internal stress testing in Microsoft. > >>> > >>> Adding a WARN when this happens, in hope of understanding > >>> why this happens when it happens. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c > >>> index 6e3be58cfe49..43162915e03c 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c > >>> +++ b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c > >>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ smb2_add_credits(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, > >>> server->conn_id, server->hostname, *val, > >>> add, server->in_flight); > >>> } > >>> + WARN_ON(server->in_flight == 0); > >>> server->in_flight--; > >>> if (server->in_flight == 0 && > >>> ((optype & CIFS_OP_MASK) != CIFS_NEG_OP) && > >>> -- > >>> 2.34.1 > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Steve > > > > Makes sense. We can have a warn once. > > Which sounds great, but isn't this connection basically toast? > It's not super helpful to just whine. Why not clamp it at zero? > > Tom. So there's no "legal" way that this count can go negative. If it has, that's definitely because there's a bug. The WARN will hopefully help us catch and fix the bug. We could also have a clamp at 0. I'll send an updated patch. -- Regards, Shyam
