On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 3:42 AM R. Diez <rdiez-2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: <...> > Now that I mentioned misleading messages: The man page for mount.cifs, parameters rsize and wsize, talks about "maximum amount of data the kernel will request", and about the "maximum size that servers will accept". It is not clear that this is a maximum value for the negotiation phase, so 1) you do not have to worry about setting it too high on the Linux client, as the server will not reject it but negotiate it down if necessary (is that true?), and 2) the negotiation result may actually be much lower than the value you requested, but that is fine, as it wasn't really a hard request, but a soft petition. > > I suggest that you guys rephrase that man page, in order to prevent other people scratching their heads again. > > I would write something along this line: "Maximum amount of data that the kernel will negotiate for read [or write] requests in bytes. Maximum size that servers will negotiate is typically ...". That is a good idea - there are also other changes to the mount.cifs man page to be done (e.g. to go through the mount parameters in fs/smb/client/fs_context.c and compare with the mount.cifs man page to see which are missing descriptions) > By the way, the current option naming is quite misleading too. I am guessing that you can specify "wsize=xxx" and then "mount -l" will show "wsize=yyy", leaving you wondering why your value was not actually taken. Or, like it happened this time, other people automatically assume that I specified a wsize, when I didn't. I would have called these parameters "maxwsize" and "negotiatedwsize", to make the distinction clear. I wonder if it is not too late to change the name of the one listed by "mount -l", that is, the "negotiatedwsize". > > Regards, > rdiez The mount parm names wsize= and rsize= were used to match other filesystems (e.g. nfs) which have similarly named mount params for a similar purpose. -- Thanks, Steve
