On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 05:41:08AM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On 8/25/2015 12:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 08:59:13AM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >>> - if (mcast->logcount++ < 20) {
> >>> - if (status == -ETIMEDOUT || status == -EAGAIN) {
> >>> + bool silent_fail =
> >>> + test_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_FLAG_SENDONLY, &mcast->flags) &&
> >>> + status == -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> Aren't there other reasons that send only join might have EINVAL
> >> indicated ?
> >
> > Not sure, the layers below all eat the detailed error code. Hopefully
> > EINVAL isn't re-used.
>
> AFAIR there are a number of reasons EINVAL could occur here in which
> case this makes this change overly silent. If so, this particular
> failure case of send only join failure due to SM rejection (perhaps
> ERR_REQ_INVALID SA status only) is best to be made unique and different
> from the other current EINVAL failures here.
That is way to much to undertake just to silence this message.
Unless you know the other EINVALs are likely to happen, I'd just
ignore this imperfection.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
