[[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer to reconnect transport

[Long Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Talpey
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:03 PM
> To: Long Li <longli at microsoft.com>; Steve French <sfrench at samba.org>;
> linux-cifs at vger.kernel.org; samba-technical at lists.samba.org; linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> to reconnect transport
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cifs-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-cifs-
> > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Long Li
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM
> > To: Steve French <sfrench at samba.org>; linux-cifs at vger.kernel.org;
> > samba- technical at lists.samba.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Long Li <longli at microsoft.com>
> > Subject: [[PATCH v1] 23/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Implement API for upper layer
> > to reconnect transport
> >
> > +int cifs_reconnect_rdma_session(struct TCP_Server_Info *server) {
> > +       log_rdma_event("reconnecting rdma session\n");
> > +
> > +       // why reconnect while it is still connected?
> > +       if (server->rdma_ses->transport_status == CIFS_RDMA_CONNECTED)
> {
> > +               log_rdma_event("still connected, not reconnecting\n");
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> 
> Why is this check needed?

This was used in early stage of development. It's probably not needed anymore. Will look into this.

> 
> > +
> > +       // wait until the transport is destroyed
> > +       while (server->rdma_ses->transport_status !=
> CIFS_RDMA_DESTROYED)
> > +               msleep(1);
> 
> Polling!? Please plan to implement a proper handshake for connection logic.

Will look into using wait queue.