On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 11:11 +0200, trondmy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ensure that the NFSv4 error handling code recognises the
> RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL flag, and handles the ENETDOWN and ENETUNREACH
> errors accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task *task, struct nfs_server *server,
> struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client;
> int ret;
>
> + if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN ||
> + task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) &&
> + task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) {
> + exception->retry = 0;
> + exception->recovering = 0;
> + exception->retry = 0;
Why set exception->retry twice?
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode, exception);
> if (exception->delay) {
> int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server, exception);
Other than that, this looks sane.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
