On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:37:01 +0300 > Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The goal of this patchset is to reorganize existing CIFS code to make it >> easily expandable when SMB2 specific code come into the tree. This let us >> avoid a code dublication and reduce the whole number of changes coming >> with SMB2 code. >> >> Pavel Shilovsky (17): >> CIFS: Simplify inFlight logic >> CIFS: Introduce credit-based flow control >> CIFS: Count blocking lock command >> CIFS: Delete echo_retries module parm >> CIFS: Make wait_for_free_request killable >> CIFS: Respect MaxMpxCount field >> CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from transport routines >> CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from demultiplex code >> CIFS: Separate protocol-specific code from cifs_readv_receive code >> CIFS: Expand CurrentMid field >> CIFS: Change mid_q_entry structure fields > > nit: It seems like the above patches ought to be one set and the lower > patches ought to be another. No objection to merging them both in 3.3, > however but it's generally easier to get small sets merged than bigger > ones. > >> CIFS: Move locks to file structure >> CIFS: Fix VFS locks usage >> CIFS: Convert lock type to 32 bit variable >> CIFS: Separate protocol specific lock type handling >> CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from getlk >> CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from setlk >> >> fs/cifs/README | 6 +- >> fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c | 28 ++-- >> fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h | 4 +- >> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 18 --- >> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 98 +++++++++++---- >> fs/cifs/cifsproto.h | 18 ++- >> fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 107 ++++++++++------- >> fs/cifs/connect.c | 123 +++++++++---------- >> fs/cifs/dir.c | 5 +- >> fs/cifs/file.c | 254 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> fs/cifs/misc.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++------- >> fs/cifs/netmisc.c | 3 +- >> fs/cifs/transport.c | 327 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> 13 files changed, 702 insertions(+), 441 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 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 > > I like this set overall, but we obviously have some unanswered > questions about SMB1 behavior. > > Here's what I'd suggest for 3.3: > > Let's plan to take this patchset or something very similar to it, but > do it in such a way that we do substantially alter the SMB1 behavior > yet. IOW, integrate the existing behavior of the SMB1 code into this > patchset. > > You should be fine to change the echo behavior and get rid of > echo_retries. What we don't want to change yet is the behavior of > blocking locks, oplock breaks, etc... > > Once we have a clearer picture of how we want the SMB1 code to behave, > we can then do a (hopefully small) set of patches to change the SMB1 > behavior for the better. > > Does that sound reasonable? If we can get agreement on a simple patch to block outgoing requests at maxmpx (similar to earlier patch) which would be suitable for stable and address the Windows Vista/7 client (running as a server) - that would make sense to consider separately. For that patch we would avoid the complexity of touching blocking lock behavior. -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
