On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:46:56PM -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > On 22 Jan 2024, at 17:44, samasth.norway.ananda@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 1/22/24 2:41 PM, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > >> On 22 Jan 2024, at 12:23, Samasth Norway Ananda wrote: > >> > >>> In the else block we are assigning the req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries > >>> value to timeout.to_initval, whereas it should have been assigned to > >>> timeout.to_retries instead. > >>> > >>> Fixes: 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel") > >>> Signed-off-by: Samasth Norway Ananda <samasth.norway.ananda@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I came across the patch 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc > >>> timeouts for backchannel") which assigns value to same variable in the > >>> else block. Can I please get your input on the patch? > >> > >> Oh yes, this a good fix. Usually the maintainers won't pick up a patch > >> that's only sent to the list, rather the patch should be addressed to them > >> directly and copied to the list. Can you re-send this patch to: > >> > >> Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Anna Schumaker <anna@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> and copy linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? You can also add my: > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sure, I will do that. Thanks for the review. > > Can you also fixup the block above the hunk you posted? Its backwards there too! It's backwards in a different way. And should you set to_maxval in both places as well? -- Chuck Lever
