In the else block we are assigning the req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries
value to timeout.to_initval, whereas it should have been assigned to
timeout.to_retries instead.
Fixes: 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel")
Signed-off-by: Samasth Norway Ananda <[email protected]>
---
Hi,
I came across the patch 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc
timeouts for backchannel") which assigns value to same variable in the
else block. Can I please get your input on the patch?
Thank you.
---
net/sunrpc/svc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
index f60c93e5a25d..295266a50244 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
@@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ void svc_process_bc(struct rpc_rqst *req, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
timeout.to_retries = rqstp->bc_to_initval;
} else {
timeout.to_initval = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_initval;
- timeout.to_initval = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries;
+ timeout.to_retries = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries;
}
memcpy(&req->rq_snd_buf, &rqstp->rq_res, sizeof(req->rq_snd_buf));
task = rpc_run_bc_task(req, &timeout);
--
2.42.0
On 22 Jan 2024, at 12:23, Samasth Norway Ananda wrote:
> In the else block we are assigning the req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries
> value to timeout.to_initval, whereas it should have been assigned to
> timeout.to_retries instead.
>
> Fixes: 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel")
> Signed-off-by: Samasth Norway Ananda <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi,
>
> I came across the patch 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc
> timeouts for backchannel") which assigns value to same variable in the
> else block. Can I please get your input on the patch?
Oh yes, this a good fix. Usually the maintainers won't pick up a patch
that's only sent to the list, rather the patch should be addressed to them
directly and copied to the list. Can you re-send this patch to:
Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>,Anna Schumaker <[email protected]>
and copy [email protected]? You can also add my:
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <[email protected]>
Ben
On 1/22/24 2:41 PM, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2024, at 12:23, Samasth Norway Ananda wrote:
>
>> In the else block we are assigning the req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries
>> value to timeout.to_initval, whereas it should have been assigned to
>> timeout.to_retries instead.
>>
>> Fixes: 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel")
>> Signed-off-by: Samasth Norway Ananda <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Hi,
>>
>> I came across the patch 57331a59ac0d (“NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc
>> timeouts for backchannel") which assigns value to same variable in the
>> else block. Can I please get your input on the patch?
>
> Oh yes, this a good fix. Usually the maintainers won't pick up a patch
> that's only sent to the list, rather the patch should be addressed to them
> directly and copied to the list. Can you re-send this patch to:
>
> Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>,Anna Schumaker <[email protected]>
>
> and copy [email protected]? You can also add my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <[email protected]>
Sure, I will do that. Thanks for the review.
Samasth.
>
> Ben
>