On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:11:13 -0400 Jim McDonough <jmcd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The only other thing I see is that the code in cifs_all_info_to_fattr > > ought to be changed to use this flag and not try to fake up the > > cf_nlink value. > Ok, after looking a bit more, I'm not sure how we would know what to > do. If we're doing a qpathinfo for all_info, aren't we always getting > a value for nlink? How would we determine whether it needs to be > "fixed" or not? Do we just assume that for all non-unix cases we > can't trust it? > We get a NumberOfLinks value that is often wrong. See commit 6658b9f70e. Windows-y servers have funny ideas about how hardlinks work. I'd suggest just trying to follow the logic as it currently exists and simply change it over to use your new flag. -- 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
