On 8/27/2015 7:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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)
I meant ERR_REQ_INSUFFICIENT_COMPONENTS here.
>> 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.
That's probably the only reasonable choice in the short run :-(
-- Hal
>
> 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
