On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 14:40, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Trond Myklebust >> <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 14:06, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Trond, >>>> >>>> Is there a reason that nfs4_proc_reclaim_complete() isn't wrapped >>>> with a do while() to handle errors? >>> >>> What do we not already handle correctly in nfs4_reclaim_complete_done()? >> >> Could this be because when an error occurs rpc_done isn't called >> (rpc_release is called)? What I see is that if RECLAIM_COMPLETE gets >> an error (BAD_SESSION) the client just ignores it. >> > > That’s correct. Why do we need to handle BAD_SESSION there? We’re done with state recovery, so if the server rebooted, we can catch that later. (1) don't we want to handle session errors as soon as possible? (2) I ran into a problem (not sure yet if reproducible) where I had a client stuck in an infinite loop of RECLAIM_COMPLETE being sent with reply of BAD_SESSION. yes I don't know why the client is looping but it made me look into the fact that we are not handling session errors on reclaim complete which I simulated by having the server return BAD_SESSION to RECLAIM_COMPLETE and I see that client simply ignores it. -- 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
