Jeffrey Layton wrote:
> > ...or that samba is omitting it and is sending cached info instead of
> > doing the lstat() call? I'm not sure if it does that, but I don't
> > think you should draw too many conclusions about the behavior of
> > cifs.ko from stracing smbd.
> >
> > What may make more sense is to get network captures and analyze the
> > behavior from that perspective.
> >
>
> ...or maybe it *is* cifs.ko. From cifs_inode_needs_reval:
>
>
> if (!time_in_range(jiffies, cifs_i->time,
> cifs_i->time + cifs_sb->actimeo))
> return true;
>
>
> ...I think though that if cifs_i->time == jiffies and actimeo=0, then
> that condition will be false. As a quick check, it might be good to add
> something like this before that if statement and then rerun your test:
>
> if (!cifs_sb->actimeo)
> return true;
>
> That should get rid of that particular corner case.
Yes, I confirmed that below change fixes this problem. Thank you.
--- a/fs/cifs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c
@@ -1737,6 +1737,8 @@ cifs_inode_needs_reval(struct inode *inode)
if (cifs_i->time == 0)
return true;
+ if (!cifs_sb->actimeo)
+ return true;
if (!time_in_range(jiffies, cifs_i->time,
cifs_i->time + cifs_sb->actimeo))
return true;
--
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
