From: Tim Menninger <tmenninger@everpuredata.com>
To: trondmy@kernel.org, anna@kernel.org
Cc: cel@kernel.org, ebadger@everpuredata.com,
jcurley@everpuredata.com, jlayton@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, slingappa@everpuredata.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] SUNRPC: add request-scoped disconnects when cancelling tasks
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 23:38:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261106233820.2182993-1-tmenninger@everpuredata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261105170653.3200815-1-tmenninger@everpuredata.com>
> Would retaining the request/connection-generation scope, while removing
> the additional unconditional lock acquisition from xprt_release(), be a
> reasonable direction?
I've posted v3 with the additional unconditional lock acquisition
removed:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261106232844.2176820-1-tmenninger@everpuredata.com
There is still a broader question about when we should cancel I/O in the
first place. This series does not change those cancellation decisions. I
still think the narrower disconnect scope is useful independently of how
we resolve that broader question. Where cancellation does require a
disconnect, it should not also tear down unrelated transports or a
replacement connection generation that did not carry the affected
requests.
I posted v3 to put that narrower change forward for review, not to
suggest that the cancellation-policy question is settled.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-06 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-05 2:02 [PATCH v2 0/2] SUNRPC/NFS: limit transport disconnects when cancelling flexfiles I/O tmenninger
2026-11-05 2:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] SUNRPC: add request-scoped disconnects when cancelling tasks tmenninger
2026-11-05 3:14 ` Trond Myklebust
2026-11-05 3:20 ` Trond Myklebust
2026-11-05 17:06 ` Tim Menninger
2026-11-06 23:38 ` Tim Menninger [this message]
2026-11-05 2:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] NFSv4/flexfiles: limit transport disconnects when cancelling I/O tmenninger
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=20261106233820.2182993-1-tmenninger@everpuredata.com \
--to=tmenninger@everpuredata.com \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=cel@kernel.org \
--cc=ebadger@everpuredata.com \
--cc=jcurley@everpuredata.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slingappa@everpuredata.com \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.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®