Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1711456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-14 23:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-15 01:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to reconnect transport Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com> - 2017-08-14 23:10 +0200
RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to reconnect transport Long Li <longli@microsoft.com> - 2017-08-15 01:40 +0200
| From | Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to reconnect transport |
| Message-ID | <ueuMx-IV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cifs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-cifs-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Long Li
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM
> To: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>; linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org; samba-
> technical@lists.samba.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
> Subject: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to
> reconnect transport
>
> +int cifs_reconnect_rdma_session(struct TCP_Server_Info *server)
> +{
> + log_rdma_event("reconnecting rdma session\n");
> +
> + // why reconnect while it is still connected?
> + if (server->rdma_ses->transport_status == CIFS_RDMA_CONNECTED) {
> + log_rdma_event("still connected, not reconnecting\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Why is this check needed?
> +
> + // wait until the transport is destroyed
> + while (server->rdma_ses->transport_status != CIFS_RDMA_DESTROYED)
> + msleep(1);
Polling!? Please plan to implement a proper handshake for connection logic.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Long Li <longli@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 01:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uex7I-21H-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1711456 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Talpey
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:03 PM
> To: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>; Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>;
> linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org; samba-technical@lists.samba.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> to reconnect transport
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cifs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-cifs-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Long Li
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM
> > To: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>; linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org;
> > samba- technical@lists.samba.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
> > Subject: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> > to reconnect transport
> >
> > +int cifs_reconnect_rdma_session(struct TCP_Server_Info *server) {
> > + log_rdma_event("reconnecting rdma session\n");
> > +
> > + // why reconnect while it is still connected?
> > + if (server->rdma_ses->transport_status == CIFS_RDMA_CONNECTED)
> {
> > + log_rdma_event("still connected, not reconnecting\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> Why is this check needed?
This was used in early stage of development. It's probably not needed anymore. Will look into this.
>
> > +
> > + // wait until the transport is destroyed
> > + while (server->rdma_ses->transport_status !=
> CIFS_RDMA_DESTROYED)
> > + msleep(1);
>
> Polling!? Please plan to implement a proper handshake for connection logic.
Will look into using wait queue.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web