From: Shyam Prasad N <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Paulo Alcantara <email@example.com>
Cc: "Steve French" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Aurélien Aptel" <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, "rohiths msft" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Multichannel patches
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 19:38:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANT5p=ro-sZfc8bPhh7COEp_KBHF6KNzbSV30WyRo2NHLneqAw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
The buildbot testing once hit a deadlock when running with the above patches.
I found one possibility during cifs_reconnect, where a deadlock can occur.
I've fixed that and some warnings that kernel bots have identified in
the below two patches:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:55 PM Paulo Alcantara <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Shyam Prasad N <email@example.com> writes:
> > @Paulo Alcantara That would be great if you can help testing my
> > changes. Please test with these new changes.
> >> The super is only used for providing cifs_sb_info::origin_fullpath as key to find the corresponding failover targets in referral cache.
> > I'm wondering what would happen if there are multiple tcons to the
> > same origin_fullpath (possibly in different sessions)?
> That is certainly a problem, indeed. I'm waiting for the DFS tests to
> finish and then send a series that contains a potential fix for that --
> e.g. not sharing TCP servers when mounting DFS shares. We used to not
> share tcons with DFS mounts because they might contain different prefix
> paths but connected to same share, however that wasn't enough because
> multiple DFS mounts may connect to same target servers, although they
> might failover to completely different servers.
> > Also, doesn't failover targets apply to each channel under a session?
> > Shouldn't we switch targets on reconnect of secondary channels too?
> That's a interesting question. I recall discussing this with Aurelien
> some time ago while running a few DFS + multichannel tests.
> So yes, I agree with you that when we successfully reconnect to failover
> target (primary channel), then we should also update all secondary
> channels with the new server's ip address and reconnect them.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-05 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-02 12:43 Multichannel patches Shyam Prasad N
2021-06-02 15:57 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-06-02 18:55 ` Steve French
2021-06-02 16:45 ` Paulo Alcantara
2021-06-04 9:13 ` Shyam Prasad N
2021-06-04 15:10 ` Steve French
2021-06-04 15:25 ` Paulo Alcantara
2021-06-05 14:08 ` Shyam Prasad N [this message]
2021-06-05 17:43 ` Steve French
2021-06-05 17:57 ` Steve French
2021-06-08 9:54 ` Shyam Prasad N
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).