for-next updated to remove that patch
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:02 AM Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
--
Thanks,
Steve
