On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:42:52 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/29/2011 01:24 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:27:33 -0500 > > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:17:25 +0530 > >>> Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 09/28/2011 03:06 AM, Steve French wrote: > >>>>> FYI - The cifs async write in 3.0 seems to exacerbate problems running > >>>>> out of memory (apparently) on the Windows 7 system (running as a > >>>>> server) after a large file copy to the server completes. I have been > >>>>> able to reproduce the same problem on Windows Vista Service Pack 2 > >>>>> (which is a good news/bad news story since my earlier testing on > >>>>> Windows Vista showed hangs on some requests rather than returning out > >>>>> of memory). Does not seem to be a problem with any of the Windows > >>>>> server versions just Windows 7 and Vista so far. > >>>> > >>>> The last time when I encountered this, cifs client was reporting "Cannot > >>>> allocate memory" a.k.a -ENOMEM error. But, it is actually a > >>>> NT_STATUS_INSUFF_SERVER_RESOURCES error from Server being mapped to > >>>> -ENOMEM. I found this mapping confusing atleast initially. Is this > >>>> mapping correct? > >>>> > >>>> Not sure do we have a POSIX equivalent of > >>>> NT_STATUS_INSUFF_SERVER_RESOURCES? Should we map it to a error code that > >>>> is more obvious? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Maybe -EREMOTEIO ? > >> > >> The mapping of NT_STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_SERVER_RESOURCES to posix error > >> ENOMEM appears to be correct for multiple reasons. Windows itself maps it this > >> way when mapping from NT STATUS to DOS errors. For example, on subsequent > >> requests, I see server returning DOS (!) error for error_no_memory on some > >> types of SMBs and NT error insufficient_server_resources on others. > >> > > > > I don't know... > > > > ENOMEM has clear connotations -- it tells you the machine (client) is > > unable to allocate memory. You might be able to stretch that to mean > > that the client is unable to allocate some other resource, but in this > > case it's the *server* not the client that's reporting the problem. > > Exactly. I have had customers with whom I had hard time explaining this > is not a client side problem because they argue that it is a client side > memory allocation error and the client should be fixed. I couldn't find > any standard text where the current mapping is documented. > > > It seems probable that DOS error codes just lacked anything better for > > this mapping. In our case though, -EREMOTEIO seems like a better > > mapping as it makes it clear that it's the server that can't allocate > > resources, not the client. > > > > -EREMOTEIO sounds very close me. Atleast, it communicates it is a remote > server side issue and not a client side issue. > Yeah, I always sort of consider -EIO to be more or less a "catch-all" error. Report that when you can't translate it to any other allowable error. -EREMOTEIO is basically -EIO on a remote host -- that seems like a more reasonable representation of the problem. -- 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
