Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net/smc: remove the fallback in __smc_connect

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Wenjia Zhang:
   Looks like the logic you're saying is okay. Do I need another patch
to perfect it? As below:
diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
index 73a875573e7a..b23d15506afc 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -1523,7 +1523,7 @@ static int __smc_connect(struct smc_sock *smc)
                ini->smcd_version &= ~SMC_V1;
                ini->smcr_version = 0;
                ini->smc_type_v1 = SMC_TYPE_N;
-               if (!ini->smcd_version) {
+               if (!smc_ism_is_v2_capable()) {
                        rc = SMC_CLC_DECL_GETVLANERR;
                        goto fallback;
                }


Thank you

Zhengchao Shao

On 2024/7/31 23:15, Wenjia Zhang wrote:


On 30.07.24 03:25, Zhengchao Shao wrote:
When the SMC client begins to connect to server, smcd_version is set
to SMC_V1 + SMC_V2. If fail to get VLAN ID, only SMC_V2 information
is left in smcd_version. And smcd_version will not be changed to 0.
Therefore, remove the fallback caused by the failure to get VLAN ID.

Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  net/smc/af_smc.c | 4 ----
  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
index 73a875573e7a..83f5a1849971 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -1523,10 +1523,6 @@ static int __smc_connect(struct smc_sock *smc)
          ini->smcd_version &= ~SMC_V1;
          ini->smcr_version = 0;
          ini->smc_type_v1 = SMC_TYPE_N;
-        if (!ini->smcd_version) {
-            rc = SMC_CLC_DECL_GETVLANERR;
-            goto fallback;
-        }
      }
      rc = smc_find_proposal_devices(smc, ini);

Though you're right that here smcd_version never gets 0, it actually is a bug from ("42042dbbc2eb net/smc: prepare for SMC-Rv2 connection"). The purpose of the check here was to fallback at a early phase before calling smc_find_proposal_devices(). However, this change is not wrong, just I personally like adding a check for smc_ism_is_v2_capable() more.

Thanks,
Wenjia




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux