On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:45:36 +0530
Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> wrote:

> kernel_sendmsg() is less likely to return -ENOSPC and it might be
> a bug to do so. However, in the past there might have been cases
> where a -ENOSPC was returned from a low level driver.
> 
> Add a WARN_ON_ONCE() to ensure that it is safe to assume that -ENOSPC
> is no longer returned. This -ENOSPC specific handling will be removed
> once we are sure it is no longer returned.
> 
> Also, avoid setting -ENOSPC to -EAGAIN while at it.
> 
> Cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/transport.c |    5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/transport.c b/fs/cifs/transport.c
> index d9b639b..afe000f 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/transport.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/transport.c
> @@ -155,6 +155,10 @@ smb_sendv(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct kvec 
> *iov, int n_vec)
>               rc = kernel_sendmsg(ssocket, &smb_msg, &iov[first_vec],
>                                   n_vec - first_vec, total_len);
>               if ((rc == -ENOSPC) || (rc == -EAGAIN)) {
> +                     /*
> +                      * Catch if a low level driver returns -ENOSPC.
> +                      */
> +                     WARN_ON_ONCE(rc == -ENOSPC);
>                       i++;
>                       /*
>                        * If blocking send we try 3 times, since each can block
> @@ -177,7 +181,6 @@ smb_sendv(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct kvec 
> *iov, int n_vec)
>                       if ((i >= 14) || (!server->noblocksnd && (i > 2))) {
>                               cERROR(1, "sends on sock %p stuck for 15 
> seconds",
>                                   ssocket);
> -                             rc = -EAGAIN;

Do you really want to remove this reset? This will change the behavior
if the lower levels do indeed return -ENOSPC. That will now bubble back
up to the upper levels and it will likely abort the call instead of
retrying.

I think it would be best that we add the WARN_ON_ONCE but not change
anything else. If no one reports seeing that warning fire for 2 or 3
releases then we can safely remove the -ENOSPC handling. Maybe shoot
for that in 3.10 or so?

You may want to add a comment to remind us to revisit that for the 3.10
cycle.

>                               break;
>                       }
>                       msleep(1 << i);

-- 
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to