2014-07-03 20:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>: > After chatting with Pavel, I'll go ahead and Ack this patch. I think > it's probably the lesser evil... > > It does seem to me though it seems to me that if you got part of a read > request and then hit an error, then it would be: > > a) more efficient to not reissue the reads that were successful > > ...and... > > b) more correct to go ahead and return a short read. There's no > guarantee that you'll be able to reach the server in order to do the > reconnect, so it seems like it would be better to go ahead and return > what we have than keep retrying in the kernel. > > So...with that in mind... > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> I think the patch [01/16] of the series should go to stable since it fixes the existing problem. Thoughts? -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
