Fixed minor typo in comments and merged into cifs-2.6.git On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > actimeo=0 is supposed to be a special case that ensures that inode > attributes are always refetched from the server instead of trusting the > cache. The cifs code however uses time_in_range() to determine whether > the attributes have timed out. In the case where cifs_i->time equals > jiffies, this leads to the cifs code not refetching the inode attributes > when it should. > > Fix this by explicitly testing for actimeo=0, and handling it as a > special case. > > Reported-and-Tested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/cifs/inode.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/inode.c b/fs/cifs/inode.c > index aadc2b68678b..a22d667f1069 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c > @@ -1737,6 +1737,9 @@ cifs_inode_needs_reval(struct inode *inode) > if (cifs_i->time == 0) > return true; > > + if (!cifs_sb->actimeo) > + return true; > + > if (!time_in_range(jiffies, cifs_i->time, > cifs_i->time + cifs_sb->actimeo)) > return true; > -- > 1.8.5.3 > -- 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
