On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:31 AM NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Thanks Neil for pointing it out. We need the "find_active", otherwise as Trond pointed out it breaks the offline function. But I do believe I missed the "!" in the logic. I believe the reason this hasn't caused problems is because for the offline transports we never use the xprt_iter_xprt(). We only iterate thru the get_next when we iterate offline transports. But I should fix the function that adds the "!". > > 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 > > > > > > > >
