[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220216031307.GA2243@e02h04389.eu6sqa>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:13:07 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.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 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.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists