On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 23:39 +0800, jsq wrote: > > [You don't often get email from thfeathers@xxxxxxx. Learn why this is > > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ;] > > > > current function always return a active xprt or NULL no matter what > > find_active > > > This patch clearly breaks xprt_switch_find_current_entry_offline(). I think it actually fixes xprt_switch_find_current_entry_offline(). Looking closely at _xprt_switch_find_current_entry: if (found && ((find_active && xprt_is_active(pos)) || (!find_active && xprt_is_active(pos)))) and comparing with similar code in xprt_switch_find_next_entry: if (found && ((check_active && xprt_is_active(pos)) || (!check_active && !xprt_is_active(pos)))) There is a difference in the number of '!'. I suspect the former is wrong. If the former is correct, then "find_active" is irrelevant. NeilBrown > Furthermore, we do not accept patches without a real name on a Signed- > off-by: line. > > So NACK on two accounts. > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >
