On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 22:41:25 -0600 > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> [CIFS] fix "disabling echoes and oplocks" on SMB2 mounts >> >> SMB2 and later will return only 1 credit for session setup (phase 1) >> not just for the negotiate protocol response. Do not disable >> echoes and oplocks on session setup (we only need one credit >> for tree connection anyway) as a resonse with only 1 credit >> on phase 1 of sessionsetup is expected. >> >> Fixes the "CIFS VFS: disabling echoes and oplocks" message >> logged to dmesg. >> >> Signed-off-by: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c >> index e7f9dbc..41d9d07 100644 >> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c >> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c >> @@ -612,7 +612,8 @@ ssetup_ntlmssp_authenticate: >> >> /* BB add code to build os and lm fields */ >> >> - rc = SendReceive2(xid, ses, iov, 2, &resp_buftype, CIFS_LOG_ERROR); >> + rc = SendReceive2(xid, ses, iov, 2, &resp_buftype, >> + CIFS_LOG_ERROR | CIFS_NEG_OP); >> >> kfree(security_blob); >> rsp = (struct smb2_sess_setup_rsp *)iov[0].iov_base; >> > > Looks ok, I guess, but now the name "CIFS_NEG_OP" is somewhat > confusing. Perhaps it should be changed to something more descriptive? > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> I don't mind either way (CIFS_NEG_OP or CIFS_SESSION_ESTABLISHMENT_OP or some such) but think it probably isn't important enough to change - don't mind if someone wants to pretty up the name later. -- 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
