On 2023/10/13 16:00, Wen Gu wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/10/12 20:37, Dust Li wrote:
>
>> In the smc_listen_work(), if smc_listen_prfx_check() failed,
>> the real reason: SMC_CLC_DECL_DIFFPREFIX was dropped, and
>> SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV was returned.
>>
>> Althrough this is also kind of SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV, but return
>> the real reason is much friendly for debugging.
>>
>> Fixes: e49300a6bf62 ("net/smc: add listen processing for SMC-Rv2")
>> Signed-off-by: Dust Li <dust.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>> index bacdd971615e..21d4476b937b 100644
>> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>> @@ -2361,7 +2361,7 @@ static int smc_listen_find_device(struct smc_sock *new_smc,
>> smc_find_ism_store_rc(rc, ini);
>> return (!rc) ? 0 : ini->rc;
>> }
>> - return SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV;
>> + return prfx_rc;
>> }
>> /* listen worker: finish RDMA setup */
> Inspired by this fix, I am thinking that is it suitable to store the first
> decline reason rather than real decline reason that caused the return of
> smc_listen_find_device()?
>
> For example, when running SMC between two peers with only RDMA devices. Then
> in smc_listen_find_device():
>
> 1. call smc_find_ism_v2_device_serv() and find that no ISMv2 can be used.
> the reason code will be stored as SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCD2DEV.
>
> ...
>
> 2. call smc_find_rdma_v1_device_serv() and find a RDMA device, but somehow
> it failed to create buffers. It should inform users that SMC_CLC_DECL_MEM
> occurs, but now the reason code returned SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCD2DEV.
>
> I think users may be confused that why peer declines with this reason and
> wonder what happens when trying to use SMC-R.
Yes, the reason code here also makes me confused.
I think it is caused by not correctly using the function smc_find_ism_store_rc.
I'm working for the fix.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Wen Gu
>
