On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 4:46 PM <nspmangalore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cifs_pick_channel does not take into account the current
> state of the channel today. As a result, if some channels
> are unhealthy, they could still get picked, resulting
> in unnecessary errors.
>
> This change checks the channel transport status before
> making the choice. If all channels are unhealthy, the
> primary channel will be returned anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/smb/client/transport.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/smb/client/transport.c b/fs/smb/client/transport.c
> index 4f717ad7c21b..f8e6636e90a3 100644
> --- a/fs/smb/client/transport.c
> +++ b/fs/smb/client/transport.c
> @@ -1026,6 +1026,19 @@ struct TCP_Server_Info *cifs_pick_channel(struct cifs_ses *ses)
> if (!server || server->terminate)
> continue;
>
> + /*
> + * do not pick a channel that's not healthy.
> + * if all channels are unhealthy, we'll use
> + * the primary channel
> + */
> + spin_lock(&server->srv_lock);
> + if (server->tcpStatus != CifsNew &&
> + server->tcpStatus != CifsGood) {
> + spin_unlock(&server->srv_lock);
> + continue;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&server->srv_lock);
> +
> /*
> * strictly speaking, we should pick up req_lock to read
> * server->in_flight. But it shouldn't matter much here if we
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Please skip this patch. I'll submit a revised patch next week.
--
Regards,
Shyam
