Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From a protocol standpoint it's correct to reserve the credits while the > operation is in flight. But from a code standpoint it seems risky to > stop accounting for them. What if the operation is canceled, or times > out? No idea, TBH - SMB credits wrangling isn't my area of expertise. Note the patch is superfluous as smb2_readv/writev_callback() clear the credits at the end; worse, it's actually wrong as we're not allowed to touch [rw]data after calling ->async_readv()/->async_writev(). > I'd quibble with the assertion that the server will "give us new credits > in the response". The number of granted credits is always the server's > decision, not guaranteed by the protocol (except for certain edge > conditions). It does give us new credits in the response, doesn't it? In hdr.CreditRequest - though I suppose this could be zero. > I guess I'd suggest a deeper review by someone familiar with the > mechanics of fs/smb/client credit accounting. It might be ok! I've given Steve a patch to try and find where the double add occurs. David
