From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: Missing handling for NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID in nfs4_handle_exception? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:51:16 -0400 Message-ID: <461E7194.2030500@poochiereds.net> References: <1175616589.3531.8.camel@dyn9047022153> <461E1F2C.7000605@poochiereds.net> <1176397862.3531.20.camel@dyn9047022153> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: NFS List , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: Frank Filz Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hc3S1-0003GY-4m for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:51:20 -0700 Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Hc3S3-0005m9-DD for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:51:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1176397862.3531.20.camel@dyn9047022153> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Frank Filz wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 07:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: >> This looks pretty much correct to me as-is. If we set ret=0 on >> -NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID, then the caller won't get back an error code. This >> makes an assumption that every caller of nfs4_handle_exception is >> looping based on exception->retry. I'm not sure if that's a safe >> assumption. A better idea *might* be to fix up nfs4_map_errors not to >> throw the warning for some errors < -1000, but still return an error. > > nfs4_map_errors should warn about errors, because it's a last defense > against leaking NFS4 error numbers to the rest of the kernel (that > doesn't recognize them). So before calling nfs4_map_errors(), the error > code should already be converted to an errno code. > > It looked to me like every caller of nfs4_handle_exception() does loop > on exception-retry(), and in that case, does not look at the error > returned. > Yes, that is the current case, but is it safe to assume that it will always be that way (I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking)? I guess I'm not sure what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Are you simply attempting to avoid the printk's here? I'm not sure if that would be a good thing. I'd think if we're seeing a lot of these errors, then having the printk's might be good for helping to identify the problem. If there aren't many, then the printks seem fairly harmless... -- Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs