On 22 Jan 2024, at 17:53, Chuck Lever wrote: > 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. Its an artifact of my text editing.. > And should you set to_maxval in both places as well? IIRC it does not need to be set there. Ben
