| Message ID | 1553187315-107323-1-git-send-email-hzhou8@ebay.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [ovs-dev] reconnect.c: Don't transition back to ACTIVE when forced to RECONNECT. | expand |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:55:15AM -0700, Han Zhou wrote: > From: Han Zhou <hzhou8@ebay.com> > > Currently, whenever there is activity on the session, the FSM is > transitioned to ACTIVE. However, this causes reconnect_force_reconnect() > failed to work once there are traffic received from remote after > transition to RECONNECT, it will skip the reconnection phase and directly > go back to ACTIVE for the old session. This patch fixes it so that > when FSM is in RECONNECT state, it doesn't transition back to ACTIVE > directly. > > Signed-off-by: Han Zhou <hzhou8@ebay.com> > --- > lib/reconnect.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/reconnect.c b/lib/reconnect.c > index 0f21378..e2901ab 100644 > --- a/lib/reconnect.c > +++ b/lib/reconnect.c > @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ reconnect_connect_failed(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now, int error) > void > reconnect_activity(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now) > { > - if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE) { > + if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE && fsm->state != S_RECONNECT) { > reconnect_transition__(fsm, now, S_ACTIVE); > } I think that the only state where this is useful is S_IDLE. Would 'fsm->state == S_IDLE' be a better test?
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:29 PM Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:55:15AM -0700, Han Zhou wrote: > > From: Han Zhou <hzhou8@ebay.com> > > > > Currently, whenever there is activity on the session, the FSM is > > transitioned to ACTIVE. However, this causes reconnect_force_reconnect() > > failed to work once there are traffic received from remote after > > transition to RECONNECT, it will skip the reconnection phase and directly > > go back to ACTIVE for the old session. This patch fixes it so that > > when FSM is in RECONNECT state, it doesn't transition back to ACTIVE > > directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Han Zhou <hzhou8@ebay.com> > > --- > > lib/reconnect.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/reconnect.c b/lib/reconnect.c > > index 0f21378..e2901ab 100644 > > --- a/lib/reconnect.c > > +++ b/lib/reconnect.c > > @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ reconnect_connect_failed(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now, int error) > > void > > reconnect_activity(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now) > > { > > - if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE) { > > + if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE && fsm->state != S_RECONNECT) { > > reconnect_transition__(fsm, now, S_ACTIVE); > > } > > I think that the only state where this is useful is S_IDLE. Would > 'fsm->state == S_IDLE' be a better test? Agree! It will be more accurate. I will send v2.
diff --git a/lib/reconnect.c b/lib/reconnect.c index 0f21378..e2901ab 100644 --- a/lib/reconnect.c +++ b/lib/reconnect.c @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ reconnect_connect_failed(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now, int error) void reconnect_activity(struct reconnect *fsm, long long int now) { - if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE) { + if (fsm->state != S_ACTIVE && fsm->state != S_RECONNECT) { reconnect_transition__(fsm, now, S_ACTIVE); } fsm->last_activity = now;