Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-Id: <5DB946E1020000A100034B9C@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 09:16:33 +0100
From:   "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To:     "open-iscsi" <open-iscsi@googlegroups.com>, <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, "Chris Leech" <cleech@redhat.com>,
        "Lee Duncan" <lduncan@suse.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>, <mingfangsen@huawei.com>
Subject: Antw: [PATCH v2] scsi: avoid potential deadloop in iscsi_if_rx
 func
References: <EDBAAA0BBBA2AC4E9C8B6B81DEEE1D6915DFA0FE@dggeml505-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDBAAA0BBBA2AC4E9C8B6B81DEEE1D6915DFA0FE@dggeml505-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> "wubo (T)" <wubo40@huawei.com> schrieb am 30.10.2019 um 08:56 in Nachricht
<EDBAAA0BBBA2AC4E9C8B6B81DEEE1D6915DFA0FE@dggeml505-mbs.china.huawei.com>:
> From: Bo Wu <wubo40@huawei.com>

...
> +			if (--retries < 0) {
> +				printk(KERN_ERR "Send reply failed too many times. "
> +				       "Max supported retries %u\n", ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED);

Just for "personal taste": Why not simplify the message to:?
+				printk(KERN_ERR "Send reply failed too many times (%u)\n",
                               ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED);

> +				break;
> +			}
> +

Maybe place the number after "many" as an alternative. I think as the message is expected to be rare, a short variant is justified.
Also one could discuss wether the problem that originates "from external" should be KERN_ERR, or maybe just a warning, because the kernel itself can do little against that problem, and it's not a "kernel error" after all ;-)

Regards,
Ulrich