[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5DB946E1020000A100034B9C@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 09:16:33 +0100
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@...uni-regensburg.de>
To: "open-iscsi" <open-iscsi@...glegroups.com>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "Chris Leech" <cleech@...hat.com>,
"Lee Duncan" <lduncan@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com>, <mingfangsen@...wei.com>
Subject: Antw: [PATCH v2] scsi: avoid potential deadloop in iscsi_if_rx
func
>>> "wubo (T)" <wubo40@...wei.com> schrieb am 30.10.2019 um 08:56 in Nachricht
<EDBAAA0BBBA2AC4E9C8B6B81DEEE1D6915DFA0FE@...eml505-mbs.china.huawei.com>:
> From: Bo Wu <wubo40@...wei.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists