Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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
I've ran xfstests with the 2 patches on top (smb3 section only again) I
get good results less failures than v4.17 :)
Failures: generic/112 generic/123 generic/128 generic/210 generic/323 generic/355 generic/378 generic/469 generic/478 generic/484 generic/486
Failed 11 of 394 tests
Cheers,
--
Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team
GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
