2011/10/12 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:43:04 +0400
> Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/29 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Change find_cifs_mid to only return NULL if a mid could not be found.
>> > If we got part of a multi-part T2 response, then coalesce it and still
>> > return the mid. The caller can determine the T2 receive status from
>> > the flags in the mid.
>> >
>> > With this change, there is no need to pass a pointer to "length" as
>> > well so just pass by value. If a mid is found, then we can just mark
>> > it as malformed. If one isn't found, then the value of "length" won't
>> > change anyway.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > fs/cifs/connect.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c
>> > index 6b4fcb3..9518457 100644
>> > --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c
>> > +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c
>> > @@ -576,8 +576,7 @@ dequeue_mid(struct mid_q_entry *mid, int malformed)
>> >
>> > static struct mid_q_entry *
>> > find_cifs_mid(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_hdr *buf,
>> > - int *malformed, bool is_large_buf, bool *is_multi_rsp,
>> > - char **bigbuf)
>> > + int malformed, bool is_large_buf, char **bigbuf)
>> > {
>> > struct mid_q_entry *mid = NULL;
>> >
>> > @@ -585,16 +584,14 @@ find_cifs_mid(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_hdr *buf,
>> > if (!mid)
>> > return mid;
>> >
>> > - if (*malformed == 0 && check2ndT2(buf) > 0) {
>> > - /* We have a multipart transact2 resp */
>> > - *is_multi_rsp = true;
>> > + if (malformed == 0 && check2ndT2(buf) > 0) {
>> > + mid->multiRsp = true;
>> > if (mid->resp_buf) {
>> > /* merge response - fix up 1st*/
>> > - *malformed = coalesce_t2(buf, mid->resp_buf);
>> > - if (*malformed > 0) {
>> > - *malformed = 0;
>> > - mid->multiRsp = true;
>> > - return NULL;
>> > + malformed = coalesce_t2(buf, mid->resp_buf);
>> > + if (malformed > 0) {
>> > + malformed = 0;
>> ^^^^
>> this is unnecessary because we return from the function as the next step.
>>
>
> <forehead slap>
>
> Correct. It's a harmless thing though. Mind if I fix this in a
> follow-on patch to the whole series? I hate to have to respin it for
> this...
>
The follow-on patch is ok for me.
--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky.
--
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
