your explanation makes sense. will revert the commit unless anyone objects.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:03:28 -0500 > Steve French <[email protected]> wrote: > >> your patch does look right. >> > > Sigh...as is often the case, things are not quite so simple... > > I did some auditing of how server->maxBuf is used in the cifs code and > found it to be very confused. The reason it basically works, I think is > because on NEGOTIATE, the client does this: > > server->maxBuf = min(le32_to_cpu(pSMBr->MaxBufferSize), > (__u32) CIFSMaxBufSize + MAX_CIFS_HDR_SIZE); > > So using maxBuf and CIFSMaxBufSize interchangeably like the code does > is basically OK, even if it is confusing to limit how much the client > can receive based on how much the server can. > > I think that we really need to approach this more comprehensively and > have a clear delineation between server->maxBuf and CIFSMaxBufSize. I > don't think it would be wise though to put that into 3.1 at this point. > > I think it would probably be best to just back out commit c4d3396b2 for > now, and I'll plan to do this as a larger (and hopefully better-tested) > patchset for 6.2. > > Sound ok? Do you need me to send a revert patch? > > -- > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
