Padding byte in cifs readx response

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Christof Schmitt wrote:
> > 
> > I took another look. The reason for changing the new_size was that it
> > only accounted for the data without the padding byte, but the bytes
> > pointer pointed to the padding byte. On a closer look this is not
> > entirely correct, since num_bytes is also used later for the byte count
> > field. Adjusting new_size instead might be a better approach. I will
> > take another look at this area.
> 
> I *think* the attached patches should be correct, but please review them
> carefully. Next week i should also be able to get more testing done.

As I missed this the first time and I'm about to go off
on vacation for a week, I'm not gonna tempt fate by trying
to review this one again. I'll let Volker take care of it :-).

Thanks a lot and good luck with it Christof !

Jeremy.