On 2/7/25 4:53 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> For NFS4ERR_SEQ_MISORDERED, do one attempt with a seqid of 1, and then
> fall back to treating it like a BADSLOT if that fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> index 10067a34db3afff8d4e4383854ab9abd9767c2d6..d6e3e8bb2efabadda9f922318880e12e1cb2c23f 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> @@ -1393,6 +1393,16 @@ static bool nfsd4_cb_sequence_done(struct rpc_task *task, struct nfsd4_callback
> goto requeue;
> rpc_delay(task, 2 * HZ);
> return false;
> + case -NFS4ERR_SEQ_MISORDERED:
> + /*
> + * Reattempt once with seq_nr 1. If that fails, treat this
> + * like BADSLOT.
> + */
Nit: this comment says exactly what the code says. If it were me, I'd
remove it. Is there a "why" statement that could be made here? Like,
why retry with a seq_nr of 1 instead of just failing immediately?
> + if (session->se_cb_seq_nr[cb->cb_held_slot] != 1) {
> + session->se_cb_seq_nr[cb->cb_held_slot] = 1;
> + goto retry_nowait;
> + }
> + fallthrough;
> case -NFS4ERR_BADSLOT:
> /*
> * BADSLOT means that the client and server are out of sync
> @@ -1403,12 +1413,6 @@ static bool nfsd4_cb_sequence_done(struct rpc_task *task, struct nfsd4_callback
> nfsd4_mark_cb_fault(cb->cb_clp);
> cb->cb_held_slot = -1;
> goto retry_nowait;
> - case -NFS4ERR_SEQ_MISORDERED:
> - if (session->se_cb_seq_nr[cb->cb_held_slot] != 1) {
> - session->se_cb_seq_nr[cb->cb_held_slot] = 1;
> - goto retry_nowait;
> - }
> - break;
> default:
> nfsd4_mark_cb_fault(cb->cb_clp);
> }
>
--
Chuck Lever
