| Message ID | 1703153211-3717-1-git-send-email-quic_sarannya@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V1] net: qrtr: ns: Ignore ENODEV failures in ns | expand |
[Dropped bjorn.andersson@kernel.org, as the correct address seems to be andersson@kernel.org, which is already in the CC list. kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.] On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:50PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: > From: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> > > Ignore the ENODEV failures returned by kernel_sendmsg(). These errors > indicate that either the local port has been closed or the remote has > gone down. Neither of these scenarios are fatal and will eventually be > handled through packets that are later queued on the control port. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> > Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <quic_sarannya@quicinc.com> > --- > net/qrtr/ns.c | 11 +++++++---- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c > index abb0c70..8234339 100644 > --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c > +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr *dest, > msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest); > > ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); > - if (ret < 0) > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) > pr_err("failed to announce del service\n"); > > return ret; Hi, The caller of service_announce_del() ignores it's return value. So the only action on error is the pr_err() call above, and so with this patch -ENODEV is indeed ignored. However, I wonder if it would make things clearer to the reader (me?) if the return type of service_announce_del was updated void. Because as things stand -ENODEV may be returned, which implies something might handle that, even though it doe not. The above notwithstanding, this change looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> ...
On 12/23/2023 5:56 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > [Dropped bjorn.andersson@kernel.org, as the correct address seems > to be andersson@kernel.org, which is already in the CC list. > kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.] > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:50PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: >> From: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> >> >> Ignore the ENODEV failures returned by kernel_sendmsg(). These errors >> indicate that either the local port has been closed or the remote has >> gone down. Neither of these scenarios are fatal and will eventually be >> handled through packets that are later queued on the control port. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <quic_sarannya@quicinc.com> >> --- >> net/qrtr/ns.c | 11 +++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c >> index abb0c70..8234339 100644 >> --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c >> +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c >> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr *dest, >> msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest); >> >> ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); >> - if (ret < 0) >> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) >> pr_err("failed to announce del service\n"); >> >> return ret; > > Hi, > > The caller of service_announce_del() ignores it's return value. > So the only action on error is the pr_err() call above, and so > with this patch -ENODEV is indeed ignored. > > However, I wonder if it would make things clearer to the reader (me?) > if the return type of service_announce_del was updated void. Because > as things stand -ENODEV may be returned, which implies something might > handle that, even though it doe not. > > The above notwithstanding, this change looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> > > ... Hi Simon, thanks for the review and suggestion. We weren't sure whether we should change the function prototype on these patches on the chance that there will be something that listens and handles this in the future. I think it's a good idea to change it to void and we can change it back if there is such a usecase in the future.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 04:20:03PM -0800, Chris Lew wrote: > > > On 12/23/2023 5:56 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > [Dropped bjorn.andersson@kernel.org, as the correct address seems > > to be andersson@kernel.org, which is already in the CC list. > > kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.] > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:50PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: > > > From: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> > > > > > > Ignore the ENODEV failures returned by kernel_sendmsg(). These errors > > > indicate that either the local port has been closed or the remote has > > > gone down. Neither of these scenarios are fatal and will eventually be > > > handled through packets that are later queued on the control port. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <quic_sarannya@quicinc.com> > > > --- > > > net/qrtr/ns.c | 11 +++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c > > > index abb0c70..8234339 100644 > > > --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c > > > +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c > > > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr *dest, > > > msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest); > > > ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); > > > - if (ret < 0) > > > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) > > > pr_err("failed to announce del service\n"); > > > return ret; > > > > Hi, > > > > The caller of service_announce_del() ignores it's return value. > > So the only action on error is the pr_err() call above, and so > > with this patch -ENODEV is indeed ignored. > > > > However, I wonder if it would make things clearer to the reader (me?) > > if the return type of service_announce_del was updated void. Because > > as things stand -ENODEV may be returned, which implies something might > > handle that, even though it doe not. > > > > The above notwithstanding, this change looks good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> > > > > ... > > Hi Simon, thanks for the review and suggestion. We weren't sure whether we > should change the function prototype on these patches on the chance that > there will be something that listens and handles this in the future. I think > it's a good idea to change it to void and we can change it back if there is > such a usecase in the future. Hi Chris, yes, I think that would be a good approach.
diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c index abb0c70..8234339 100644 --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr *dest, msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest); ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); - if (ret < 0) + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) pr_err("failed to announce del service\n"); return ret; @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static void lookup_notify(struct sockaddr_qrtr *to, struct qrtr_server *srv, msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*to); ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); - if (ret < 0) + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) pr_err("failed to send lookup notification\n"); } @@ -207,6 +207,9 @@ static int announce_servers(struct sockaddr_qrtr *sq) xa_for_each(&node->servers, index, srv) { ret = service_announce_new(sq, srv); if (ret < 0) { + if (ret == -ENODEV) + continue; + pr_err("failed to announce new service\n"); return ret; } @@ -369,7 +372,7 @@ static int ctrl_cmd_bye(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from) msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(sq); ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); - if (ret < 0) { + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) { pr_err("failed to send bye cmd\n"); return ret; } @@ -443,7 +446,7 @@ static int ctrl_cmd_del_client(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from, msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(sq); ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); - if (ret < 0) { + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) { pr_err("failed to send del client cmd\n"); return ret; }