在 2022/9/26 20:44, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 写道:
On 9/26/22 14:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 9/26/22 12:05, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
[+ Den]
On 9/25/22 16:53, luzhipeng wrote:
From: lu zhipeng <luzhip...@cestc.cn>
Prevent the NBD socket stuck all the time, So
set timeout.
Signed-off-by: lu zhipeng <luzhip...@cestc.cn>
---
nbd/client.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/nbd/client.c b/nbd/client.c
index 30d5383cb1..89dde53a0f 100644
--- a/nbd/client.c
+++ b/nbd/client.c
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
#include "nbd-internal.h"
#include "qemu/cutils.h"
+#define NBD_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT 30
+
/* Definitions for opaque data types */
static QTAILQ_HEAD(, NBDExport) exports =
QTAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(exports);
@@ -1301,6 +1303,12 @@ int nbd_init(int fd, QIOChannelSocket *sioc,
NBDExportInfo *info,
}
}
+ if (ioctl(fd, NBD_SET_TIMEOUT, NBD_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT) < 0) {
+ int serrno = errno;
+ error_setg(errp, "Failed setting timeout");
+ return -serrno;
+ }
+
trace_nbd_init_finish();
return 0;
Personally, I don't see a problem in enabling timeout by default..
But probably we need a new option instead?
I believe that this should be the same story as we have had with
KEEPALIVE. This should be set as an option and downstream
will change its default when necessary.
It's also interesting, how NBD_SET_TIMEOUT would interfere with
keep-alive options set on the socket. Isn't existing keep-alive option
already enough, do we need both timeouts?
(and yes, if we need both ways for different cases, we definitely should
keep a possibility for the user to enable only one timeout, so now I
agree, that we need an option for this new feature)
Keep alive is only valid for tcp, but not for unix sockets
