On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:42:30 -0600 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Volker Lendecke > <Volker.Lendecke@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:28:11PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > So, what does this mean for CIFS clients? I believe that the best > > > behavior for the client is to *never* time out an individual request, > > > aside from SMB echoes. > > > > I like this concept. > > > > > That will break apps that can't take ctl-c though ... > How will waiting indefinitely for a response break applications? Returning an error just because the server is slow seems far more likely to break applications. Now, in the (IMO unlikely) event that a server is responding to echoes but not other calls, you'd have an that application will hang until someone kills it. I think that's acceptable however: It's an unlikely situation, and anyone who has a client faced with it has a way to recover from the hang. They can kill the application. The server in this case would be clearly broken however. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
