[PATCH] cifs: stop trying to use virtual circuits
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Fri Sep 20 02:24:23 CEST 2013
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:05:35AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Agreed, but I'm not convinced that there's really a downside.
> We don't currently use share modes, so that shouldn't be an issue.
> Pavel's patchset may eventually change that, but I don't see it
> happening anytime too soon.
> My initial thinking was that we might end up not getting an oplock on a
> reconnect when we held one before. OTOH, one would think that if the
> client was reclaiming the open file, the server would try to issue an
> oplock break on the previous connection. At that point, it should find
> that it's dead anyway, so that also shouldn't be an issue.
> Implementing CIFS clearly states that VC handling by servers is spotty
> at best, so I think we're best off avoiding any use of them.
> In principle, we could add a knob that tells the server to use vcnum==0
> on the first session to allow it to opt-in to this behavior, but I'd
> prefer not to do that until someone demonstrates a clear need for it so
> we can understand how best to implement it.
> If we did need to do that, there's clearly no need to use a different
> vcnum on every session. Simply using vcnum==0 on the first one and then
> vcnum==1 on every subsequent one would be sufficient.
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the samba-technical