| Message ID | 756e03b4405f80344f98a695f49e50dd3a1caca0.1743930506.git.trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Two more places that need to handle ENETDOWN/ENETUNREACH | expand |
On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 11:11 +0200, trondmy@kernel.org wrote: > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com> > > Ensure that the NFSv4 error handling code recognises the > RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL flag, and handles the ENETDOWN and ENETUNREACH > errors accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com> > --- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task *task, struct nfs_server *server, > struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client; > int ret; > > + if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN || > + task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) && > + task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) { > + exception->retry = 0; > + exception->recovering = 0; > + exception->retry = 0; Why set exception->retry twice? > + return -EIO; > + } > + > ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode, exception); > if (exception->delay) { > int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server, exception); Other than that, this looks sane. Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 09:08 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 11:11 +0200, trondmy@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com> > > > > Ensure that the NFSv4 error handling code recognises the > > RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL flag, and handles the ENETDOWN and > > ENETUNREACH > > errors accordingly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com> > > --- > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task > > *task, struct nfs_server *server, > > struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client; > > int ret; > > > > + if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN || > > + task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) && > > + task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) { > > + exception->retry = 0; > > + exception->recovering = 0; > > + exception->retry = 0; > > Why set exception->retry twice? Oops. That last one is supposed to be exception->delay = 0 Thanks for noticing! > > > + return -EIO; > > + } > > + > > ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode, > > exception); > > if (exception->delay) { > > int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server, > > exception); > > Other than that, this looks sane. > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task *task, struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client; int ret; + if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN || + task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) && + task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) { + exception->retry = 0; + exception->recovering = 0; + exception->retry = 0; + return -EIO; + } + ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode, exception); if (exception->delay) { int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server, exception);