On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:06:59 -0500 Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:02:01 +0400 > > Pavel Shilovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Add cifs_match_super to use in sget to share superblock between mounts > >> that have the same //server/sharename, credentials and mount options. > >> It helps us to improve performance on work with future SMB2.1 leases. > <snip> > >> +static int > >> +compare_mount_options(struct super_block *sb, struct cifs_mnt_data > >> *mnt_data) > >> +{ > >> + struct cifs_sb_info *old = CIFS_SB(sb); > >> + struct cifs_sb_info *new = mnt_data->cifs_sb; > >> + > >> + if ((sb->s_flags & CIFS_MS_MASK) != (mnt_data->flags & CIFS_MS_MASK)) > >> + return 0; > >> + > >> + if ((old->mnt_cifs_flags & CIFS_MOUNT_MASK) != > >> + (new->mnt_cifs_flags & CIFS_MOUNT_MASK)) > >> + return 0; > >> + > >> + if (old->rsize != new->rsize) > >> + return 0; > >> + > >> + if (new->wsize && new->wsize > old->wsize) > >> + return 0; > >> + > > > > ...also I think the above condition should be reversed. We don't want > > to match if new->wsize is smaller than the existing one. Since the > > specified wsize is just a starting point for negotiation, wsize now > > means "any wsize less than or equal to this size". If the old->wsize is > > bigger than that, then it's outside that range and we shouldn't match. > > A more important question is whether the user intentionally tried to > specify a wsize. I don't see a problem matching a new default mount > request (with no wsize specified, using therefore a default wsize) > with an existing mount (with a larger explicitly specified wsize). > If a user explicitly requests to override to a particular wsize on the 2nd > mount - seems more logical to give them what they ask for if > possible whether larger or smaller. > > Good point. That will probably mean that you'll need to separately track the "requested" wsize and the "actual" wsize. Honestly though, I don't see this as a huge issue. I suggest we take this patch as-is and plan to fix that later. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
