From: "Talpey, Thomas" Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: RPC client's TCP transport ignores errors during connect Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:28:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20080408173602.21776.60671.stgit@manray.1015granger.net> <1207677612.11699.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1207679743.11699.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Chuck Lever , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:21071 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751736AbYDHW2k (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:28:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1207679743.11699.23.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> References: <20080408173602.21776.60671.stgit-meopP2rzCrTwdl/1UfZZQIVfYA8g3rJ/@public.gmane.org> <1207677612.11699.14.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> <1207679743.11699.23.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: At 02:35 PM 4/8/2008, Trond Myklebust wrote: >The only justification for passing more errors up to the higher layers >is if they have different error handling requirements. >The reason why we currently transform more or less everything into >ENOTCONN is because the two other errors ECONNRESET and ECONNREFUSED >basically require the same kind of error handling (exit with EIO in the >"soft" case, and keep retrying in the "hard" case). > >So, what kind of RDMA errors are these, and how are we failing to handle >them correctly today? Actually, I think I replied to the wrong message - I meant to reply to the leak, not the error! But yes, the RDMA transport needs to return the "right" error - I just wish there were a betterlist. At one point I believe xprtrdma returned EINVAL (because the rdma connection code returned it to us), and the mount command helpfully printed "internal error". I.e., it was valid, but not useful. Tom.