[PATCH] Bug 11819 - The info type SMB2_SETINFO_FS is not been handled
parthasarathi.bl at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 18:00:42 UTC 2016
Thanks Jeremy and Uri for making the patch more robust.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:21:45PM +0300, Uri Simchoni wrote:
> > On 04/26/2016 02:58 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:18:14PM -0700, Partha Sarathi wrote:
> > >> Thanks Jeremy for the comments, please find the updated patch where I
> > >> taken care of your comments and its a "git format" patch with my
> > >> 'Signed-off-by:'
> > >
> > > Much better thanks Partha ! Here's a version that passes
> > > the picky developer compiler flags (needed to cast
> > > a %u to (unsigned int) in a printf format :-).
> > >
> > > Can I get a second Team reviewer ?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Jeremy.
> > >
> > The patch looks correct, but there appear to be some style/comment/debug
> > level issues - most if not all originate at the original code, but if we
> > touch it I think we should make it right. See attached patch on top of
> > last patch - It fixes some debug messages, and also fiddles a bit with
> > debug levels - I don't want to be religious about it, but there were
> > just too many places where I disagreed with the debug level. I suppose
> > they can be sqaushed together if it looks reasonable, or squashed with
> > the original debug levels.
> Thanks ! I didn't spot the DEBUG(0, issue - I'll squash these
> on top of the original patch.
> > On top of that, there's the issue of allocating the request array and
> > freeing it afterwards:
> > - Obviously in this particular case it has no use.
> > - It looks like a pattern used in the SMB1 code to allow the request
> > handler to return data.
> Yep, this is an old pattern used in the trans2 code.
> > - We can add it when we need it
> > - Since it's SMB2-only code, I'm not sure the async code will work this
> > way at all - maybe it will use subrequests to encapsulate
> > info-class-specific return data.
> > So I propose to remove this extra allocation/freeing and add something
> > suitable when the need arises.
> OK, I'll fix that and send out another version for
> Thanks for the review !
Thanks & Regards
More information about the samba-technical