[PATCH 0/3] libceph: target_copy() fixups

[PATCH 0/3] libceph: target_copy() fixups

[Ilya Dryomov]

Hello,

Split into three commits for backporting reasons: the first two can be
picked up by stable, the third should get some soak time in testing.

Thanks,

                Ilya


Ilya Dryomov (3):
  libceph: don't omit recovery_deletes in target_copy()
  libceph: don't omit used_replica in target_copy()
  libceph: use target_copy() in send_linger()

 net/ceph/osd_client.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.19.2

[PATCH 1/3] libceph: don't omit recovery_deletes in target_copy()

[Ilya Dryomov]

Currently target_copy() is used only for sending linger pings, so
this doesn't come up, but generally omitting recovery_deletes can
result in unneeded resends (force_resend in calc_target()).

Fixes: ae78dd8139ce ("libceph: make RECOVERY_DELETES feature create a new interval")
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
---
 net/ceph/osd_client.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
index a37d159019a0..8f7fbe861dff 100644
--- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static void target_copy(struct ceph_osd_request_target *dest,
 	dest->size = src->size;
 	dest->min_size = src->min_size;
 	dest->sort_bitwise = src->sort_bitwise;
+	dest->recovery_deletes = src->recovery_deletes;
 
 	dest->flags = src->flags;
 	dest->paused = src->paused;
-- 
2.19.2

[PATCH 2/3] libceph: don't omit used_replica in target_copy()

[Ilya Dryomov]

Currently target_copy() is used only for sending linger pings, so
this doesn't come up, but generally omitting used_replica can hang
the client as we wouldn't notice the acting set change (legacy_change
in calc_target()) or trigger a warning in handle_reply().

Fixes: 117d96a04f00 ("libceph: support for balanced and localized reads")
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
---
 net/ceph/osd_client.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
index 8f7fbe861dff..2db8b44e70c2 100644
--- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
@@ -448,6 +448,7 @@ static void target_copy(struct ceph_osd_request_target *dest,
 	dest->recovery_deletes = src->recovery_deletes;
 
 	dest->flags = src->flags;
+	dest->used_replica = src->used_replica;
 	dest->paused = src->paused;
 
 	dest->epoch = src->epoch;
-- 
2.19.2

[PATCH 3/3] libceph: use target_copy() in send_linger()

[Ilya Dryomov]

Instead of copying just oloc, oid and flags, copy the entire
linger target.  This is more for consistency than anything else,
as send_linger() -> submit_request() -> __submit_request() sends
the request regardless of what calc_target() says (i.e. both on
CALC_TARGET_NO_ACTION and CALC_TARGET_NEED_RESEND).

Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
---
 net/ceph/osd_client.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
index 2db8b44e70c2..db6abb5a5511 100644
--- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
@@ -3076,9 +3076,7 @@ static void send_linger(struct ceph_osd_linger_request *lreq)
 		cancel_linger_request(req);
 
 	request_reinit(req);
-	ceph_oid_copy(&req->r_base_oid, &lreq->t.base_oid);
-	ceph_oloc_copy(&req->r_base_oloc, &lreq->t.base_oloc);
-	req->r_flags = lreq->t.flags;
+	target_copy(&req->r_t, &lreq->t);
 	req->r_mtime = lreq->mtime;
 
 	mutex_lock(&lreq->lock);
-- 
2.19.2

Re: [PATCH 0/3] libceph: target_copy() fixups

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 09:44 +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Split into three commits for backporting reasons: the first two can be
> picked up by stable, the third should get some soak time in testing.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>                 Ilya
> 
> 
> Ilya Dryomov (3):
>   libceph: don't omit recovery_deletes in target_copy()
>   libceph: don't omit used_replica in target_copy()
>   libceph: use target_copy() in send_linger()
> 
>  net/ceph/osd_client.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

These all look sane to me:

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>