mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: have soft RPC tasks return -ETIMEDOUT instead of -EIO on major connect timeout
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:05:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1206821149.8455.13.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080329152424.6857ee86@tleilax.poochiereds.net>


On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 15:24 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:44:11 -0400
> Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
> > Userland has the clnt_geterr() function that returns more detailed 'RPC
> > level' errors. While that 'error function call' approach doesn't work in
> > a multi-threaded environment, we might still be able to add the
> > equivalent of a pointer to an 'rpc_err' structure to the rpc_task, and
> > then have functions like call_timeout() (and especially call_verify()!)
> > fill in more detailed error info if that pointer is non-zero?
> >
> 
> I'm not sure we really need this, do we?
> 
> Should it really be the business of the RPC layer to sanitize the
> tk_status like this? It seems like the NFS layer ought to be
> translating "illegal" errors from the RPC layer into more generic ones
> where needed rather than relying on the RPC layer to do it, though
> maybe I'm not thinking about the RPC layer in the right way here...

Yes and no. The RPC error reports are sometimes more complex than what
we can fit into a single 32-bit error code. I'm thinking in particular
of the RPC_AUTH_* errors (EACCESS just doesn't do them justice), and
RPC_PROG_MISMATCH error.

In the case of RPC_PROG_MISMATCH, it would, for instance, be really
useful for the in-kernel mount code to be able to also retrieve the
'mismatch_info' structure (see RFC1831), which tells you exactly which
program versions are actually supported on that port.

An extra optional pointer to a structure in the rpc_task won't cost us
much, but could possibly provide a lot of interesting information that
we are currently ignoring.

Cheers
  Trond


  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-29 20:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-29 12:49 Jeff Layton
2008-03-29 16:44 ` Trond Myklebust
2008-03-29 19:24   ` Jeff Layton
2008-03-29 20:05     ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2008-03-29 20:53       ` Jeff Layton
2008-03-31 19:53   ` Chuck Lever

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1206821149.8455.13.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org \
    --to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nfsv4@linux-nfs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®