On 22 Jan 2024, at 18:07, samasth.norway.ananda@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 1/22/24 3:03 PM, Benjamin Coddington wrote: >> 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. > > Ah okay. So it should be like this right? Yes! Good catch. Thank you! Ben
