[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B5DB7E5.3070907@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:25:25 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 38/40] cifs: use workqueue instead of slow-work
Hello,
On 01/24/2010 09:13 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Are you sure it needs to be changed?
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure we do. This flag only gets set to true if there's a
> reconnection event. If there is one, then any oplock break queued up
> before that happened is now invalid and shouldn't be sent.
>
> It's a fairly minor point however. Even if we send the oplock break,
> it's very unlikely to be treated as valid by the server as I don't
> think the file would have a chance to be reopened prior to that.
>
> If this is the way that the code works now, then let's go ahead with
> your version and I'll plan to queue up a separate patch to change that
> behavior after your changes go in.
Yeap, that sounds good to me or I just can queue a separate patch to
do that along with this one so that you don't have to remember
queueing it later.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists