> On Sep 25, 2024, at 5:25 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [I fixed Dan's address - sorry about that] > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Chuck Lever wrote: >> Hi Neil - >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 05:28:09PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>> >>> If the rq_prog is not in the list of programs, then we use the last >>> program in the list and subsequent tests on 'progp' being NULL are >>> useless. >> >> That's the logic error, but what is the observed unexpected >> behavior? > > The unexpected behaviour is that "if rq_prog is not in the list of > programs, then we use the last program in the list". Isn't that a > behaviour? Should I add that "we don't get the expected > rpc_prog_unavail error? I'm thinking of something that would catch the eye of some overworked support engineer who might not be deeply familiar with NFS or RPC. Clients won't see RPC_PROG_UNAVAIL, but what would they see instead? Under what conditions would they see this misbehavior? It's no big deal, since this bug will never reach a stable kernel. I was thinking out loud, and forgot to label the remark as such. -- Chuck Lever
