[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27b00eba-40a5-19e8-5af6-64d0d8f034fd@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:23:12 +0100
From: Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: return ETIMEDOUT when smc_connect_clc()
timeout
On 16/02/2022 04:13, D. Wythe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 02:02:37PM +0100, Karsten Graul wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 09:24, D. Wythe wrote:
>>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>
>>> When smc_connect_clc() times out, it will return -EAGAIN(tcp_recvmsg
>>> retuns -EAGAIN while timeout), then this value will passed to the
>>> application, which is quite confusing to the applications, makes
>>> inconsistency with TCP.
>>>
>>> From the manual of connect, ETIMEDOUT is more suitable, and this patch
>>> try convert EAGAIN to ETIMEDOUT in that case.
>>
>> You say that the sock_recvmsg() in smc_clc_wait_msg() returns -EAGAIN?
>> Is there a reason why you translate it in __smc_connect() and not already in
>> smc_clc_wait_msg() after the call to sock_recvmsg()?
>
>
> Because other code that uses smc_clc_wait_msg() handles EAGAIN allready,
> and the only exception is smc_listen_work(), but it doesn't really matter for it.
>
> The most important thing is that this conversion needs to be determined according to
> the calling scene, convert in smc_clc_wait_msg() is not very suitable.
Okay I understand, thank you.
Reviewed-by: Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists