On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 06:22:01PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Treating different calls differently for timeouts sounds like the road > to special-case madness. It seems to me that the best behavior would be > to have the client wait for a reply indefinitely if the server is > responding to periodic echoes. If that's unacceptable then perhaps a > tunable timeout that defaults to something very long (10 minutes or so).
+1 from me. "hard" mounts shouldn't drop connections whilst the server is responding to SMBecho requests. Jeremy. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
