On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > /* BB eventually switch this to SMB2 specific small buf size */
> > - *request_buf = cifs_small_buf_get();
> > + if (smb2_command == SMB2_SET_INFO)
> > + *request_buf = cifs_buf_get();
> > + else
> > + *request_buf = cifs_small_buf_get();
> > if (*request_buf == NULL) {
> > /* BB should we add a retry in here if not a writepage? */
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -3720,7 +3723,7 @@ send_set_info(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon,
> >
> > rc = cifs_send_recv(xid, ses, &rqst, &resp_buftype, flags,
> > &rsp_iov);
> > - cifs_small_buf_release(req);
> > + cifs_buf_release(req);
> > rsp = (struct smb2_set_info_rsp *)rsp_iov.iov_base;
>
> Small and large bufs use different mempools, shouldn't the release func
> match the get func?
Yes
Stefano,
Can you respin your patch? I am hoping this patch addresses a bug I
have been seeing
--
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
