From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
How would this happen?
In any case, it appears this would be returned all the way up to the
caller of svc_recv(), and it's obvious that none of them are equipped to
handle it, and not clear what they would want to do with it anyway.
Let's just drop this and return -EAGAIN.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
index 06ae8a7..97ce23f 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static int svc_udp_recvfrom(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
}
len = svc_addr_len(svc_addr(rqstp));
if (len == 0)
- return -EAFNOSUPPORT;
+ return -EAGAIN;
rqstp->rq_addrlen = len;
if (skb->tstamp.tv64 == 0) {
skb->tstamp = ktime_get_real();
--
1.7.9.5
--
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
