On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:03:08 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:10:24PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:21:33 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The only caller (svc_send) has already checked XPT_DEAD.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 3 ---
> > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > index 1454739..07919e1 100644
> > > --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> > > @@ -1135,9 +1135,6 @@ static int svc_tcp_sendto(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> > > reclen = htonl(0x80000000|((xbufp->len ) - 4));
> > > memcpy(xbufp->head[0].iov_base, &reclen, 4);
> > >
> > > - if (test_bit(XPT_DEAD, &rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_flags))
> > > - return -ENOTCONN;
> > > -
> > > sent = svc_sendto(rqstp, &rqstp->rq_res);
> > > if (sent != xbufp->len) {
> > > printk(KERN_NOTICE
> >
> >
> > So after removing all these references to XPT_DEAD, do we need XPT_DEAD at
> > all???
> >
> > I think it is only used in two other places.
> >
> > 1/ In svc_revisit we don't queue the deferred request to an XPT_DEAD
> > transport.
> > We could avoid that but changing the 'owner' of a deferred request from the
> > service to the xprt, and call cache_clean_deferred in svc_delete_xprt
>
> That use does seem a bit of a hack to me, so I'd be happy to get rid of
> it.
>
> > 2/ in svc_send(). I wonder if we need this at all. There doesn't seem to be
> > any locking to ensure that XPT_DEAD doesn't get set immediately after the
> > test, and the underlying sendto (whether tcp or udp or whatever) should fail
> > if the socket is closed, and if it doesn't it shouldn't really matter??
>
> Does it make a difference in the case of a half-close? If the client
> follows a request immediately by a FIN, and if that results in our
> setting DEAD (I think it does, assuming svc_tcp_state_change() is called
> in that case), then the current code may have the effect of preventing
> us from sending the reply.
>
> I don't know if that's good or bad.
>
> > So can we get rid of XPT_DEAL altogether?
>
> OK, I also had another use in mind: for the purposes of 4.1 (which needs
> to know when a connection goes down, e.g. to know that it's no longer
> available for callbacks), I added a list of callbacks to the xprt,
> called on svc_delete_xprt().
>
> I just noticed that I think my current code allows the 4.1 code to
> register an xprt after svc_delete_xprt() is called. I could fix that
> race by checking for DEAD after trying to register.
>
> (That callback code already seems messier than it should be, so maybe
> someone else could suggest a better scheme. I'm stuck.
>
> In any case, it wouldn't be so bad if that were the one remaining use of
> DEAD.)
Could you use XPT_CLOSE for that??
NeilBrown
>
> --b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
