On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:05:35AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Agreed, but I'm not convinced that there's really a downside. > > We don't currently use share modes, so that shouldn't be an issue. > Pavel's patchset may eventually change that, but I don't see it > happening anytime too soon. > > My initial thinking was that we might end up not getting an oplock on a > reconnect when we held one before. OTOH, one would think that if the > client was reclaiming the open file, the server would try to issue an > oplock break on the previous connection. At that point, it should find > that it's dead anyway, so that also shouldn't be an issue. > > Implementing CIFS clearly states that VC handling by servers is spotty > at best, so I think we're best off avoiding any use of them. > > In principle, we could add a knob that tells the server to use vcnum==0 > on the first session to allow it to opt-in to this behavior, but I'd > prefer not to do that until someone demonstrates a clear need for it so > we can understand how best to implement it. > > If we did need to do that, there's clearly no need to use a different > vcnum on every session. Simply using vcnum==0 on the first one and then > vcnum==1 on every subsequent one would be sufficient. Ack. Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt@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
