[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812082112.49468.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:12:48 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Dennis Hardy" <dhardy@...etthis.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, layton@...hat.com,
"Steven French" <sfrench@...ibm.com>, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...e.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Holger Hoffstaette <holger@...ards.de>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: CIFS regression in 2.6.27.8
On Monday, 8 of December 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <dhardy@...etthis.com> wrote:
> > I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
> > the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
> >
> > root@...dus:~# df -h /mnt/fsv1
> > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > //fsv1/Users 446G -222G 667G - /mnt/fsv1
> > root@...dus:~# df /mnt/fsv1
> > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > //fsv1/Users 467403140 -231816588 699219728 - /mnt/fsv1
> > root@...dus:~# mount | grep fsv1
> > //fsv1/Users on /mnt/fsv1 type cifs (rw,mand)
> > root@...dus:~#
> >
> > Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
> > in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
> >
> > Ideas?
>
> Well, lets cc the relevant people so your report isn't lost in the noise.
FWIW, it seems to be related to this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/8/7
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists