lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to reconnect transport
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Talpey
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:03 PM
> To: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>; Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>;
> linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org; samba-technical@lists.samba.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> to reconnect transport
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cifs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-cifs-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Long Li
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM
> > To: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>; linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org;
> > samba- technical@lists.samba.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
> > Subject: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> > to reconnect transport
> >
> > +int cifs_reconnect_rdma_session(struct TCP_Server_Info *server) {
> > + log_rdma_event("reconnecting rdma session\n");
> > +
> > + // why reconnect while it is still connected?
> > + if (server->rdma_ses->transport_status == CIFS_RDMA_CONNECTED)
> {
> > + log_rdma_event("still connected, not reconnecting\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> Why is this check needed?

This was used in early stage of development. It's probably not needed anymore. Will look into this.

>
> > +
> > + // wait until the transport is destroyed
> > + while (server->rdma_ses->transport_status !=
> CIFS_RDMA_DESTROYED)
> > + msleep(1);
>
> Polling!? Please plan to implement a proper handshake for connection logic.

Will look into using wait queue.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-15 01:38    [W:0.038 / U:5.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site