On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:28:08AM +0800, Guozihua (Scott) wrote: > On 2023/8/23 17:28, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 07:30:47AM +0000, Lu Jialin wrote: > >> > >> In order to resolve the problem, we retry at most 5 times when > >> padata_do_parallel return -EBUSY. For more than 5 times, we replace the > >> return err -EBUSY with -EAGAIN, which means parallel_data is changing, and > >> the caller should call it again. > > > > Steffen, should we retry this at all? Or should it just fail as it > > did before? > > > > Thanks, > > It should be fine if we don't retry and just fail with -EAGAIN and let > caller handles it. It should not break the meaning of the error code. Just failing without a retry should be ok.
