On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 09:55:49 -0500
Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
Steve,
I guess I'm missing something, but I fail to see the mismatch between
get and release, now for SMB2_SET_INFO we'll be using cifs_req_poolp in
both paths. What should I change?
--
Stefano
