On 12/17/2010 08:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> We only want to force a reconnect to the server under very limited and
> specific circumstances. Now that we have processes waiting indefinitely
> for responses, we shouldn't reach this point unless a reconnect is
> already in process. Thus, there's no reason to re-mark the server for
> reconnect here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cifs/transport.c | 4 +---
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/transport.c b/fs/cifs/transport.c
> index c41c9c4..f65cdec 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/transport.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/transport.c
> @@ -374,10 +374,8 @@ sync_mid_result(struct mid_q_entry *mid, struct TCP_Server_Info *server)
> if (mid->midState == MID_REQUEST_SUBMITTED) {
> if (server->tcpStatus == CifsExiting)
> rc = -EHOSTDOWN;
> - else {
> - server->tcpStatus = CifsNeedReconnect;
> + else
> mid->midState = MID_RETRY_NEEDED;
> - }
> }
>
> if (rc != -EHOSTDOWN) {
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx>
--
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
