On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Dominique Martinet
<dominique.marti...@cea.fr> wrote:
> That code really should never be called (rc is allocated in
> tag_alloc), but if it had been it couldn't have worked...
>
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.marti...@cea.fr>
> ---
> net/9p/trans_fd.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> To be honest, I think it might be better to just bail out if we get in
> this switch (m->req->rc == NULL after p9_tag_lookup) and not try to
> allocate more, because if we get there it's likely a race condition and
> silently re-allocating will end up in more troubles than trying to
> recover is worth.
> Thoughts ?
>
Hmmm...trying to rattle my brain and remember why I put it in there
back in 2008.
It might have just been over-defensive programming -- or more likely it just
pre-dated all the zero copy infrastructure which pretty much guaranteed we had
an rc allocated and what is there is vestigial. I'm happy to accept a
patch which
makes this an assert, or perhaps just resets the connection because something
has gone horribly wrong (similar to the ENOMEM path that is there now).
-eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
