On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 02:26:58 -0500 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:50:10 -0700 > > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> 3.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >> > > > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to put this patch into any stable release > > just yet. I think it's a correct and necessary fix, but it has some > > potential to cause regressions too (or uncover other preexisting > > problems with this code). Might it be best to wait until we have some > > more experience with this before we push it into stable? > > Delaying it a little is probably ok, but weigh that against the > frequency/severity > of the problem that Pavel's fix addresses: ie sequential writes to some > versions of Windows 7 and Windows Vista can fail partway > through large file copy (which also causes those servers > to become unresponsive to subsequent connection requests > as well) so the fix does address a hot problem. > > > I'm not disputing whether this patch is correct. It's clearly a bug that cifs.ko has never respected this value, and it's quite problematic with certain servers. The problem is that we don't have any confirmation that: a) this fixes any of the problems that we think it will b) this doesn't introduce any regressions The request slot allocation code is quite fiddly and fragile, and I think the potential for "b" is somewhat high. I'd feel more comfortable if we waited until we have more experience with this patch before merging it into stable. -- 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
