lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: smbfs in stable kernels.
On Tue, Jul 28, 1998 at 09:55:10PM -0700, Slyglif Cain wrote:
> A while ago I saw this patch on usenet to fix a problem in the stable
> kernel series with smbfs. The problem is that, even with the Win95
> bug work-around enabled, only 64 files are ever shown in a directory
> listing, and the ones that disappear seems to be rather random. I
> looked though the Documentation directory for the kernel, and the
> smbfs code, but I couldn't find a maintainer. So, attached is a patch
> to fix this problem. It turns out that there was a bug in the bug fix
> (a misplaced "}"). If possible, could this be incorporated into the
> main kernel source, as I see this problem on comp.protocols.smb. It
> was created against 2.0.33, and applies cleanly against 2.0.34 and
> 2.0.35.

A few weeks ago I caught this message which exactly describes
the problem I also see. I had been waiting for a response
from someone to confirm that it is a valid/proper fix before
using it myself as I'm not a skilled programmer, but I
haven't seen any comments on it.

I did pull down 2.0.36pre1 and 2, but it didn't make its way
into these patches. Perhaps it was overlooked in the
original post, so I thought I'd through it out for the gurus
to see again. :)

Thanks!

diff -u --recursive --new-file linux-2.0.33.orig/fs/smbfs/proc.c linux-2.0.33/fs/smbfs/proc.c
--- linux-2.0.33.orig/fs/smbfs/proc.c Thu Apr 30 18:23:30 1998
+++ linux-2.0.33/fs/smbfs/proc.c Thu Apr 30 18:24:59 1998
@@ -1217,15 +1217,15 @@
WSET(param, 10, 8 + 4 + 2); /* resume required +
close on end +
continue */
+ }
#ifdef CONFIG_SMB_WIN95
- /* Windows 95 is not able to deliver answers
- to FIND_NEXT fast enough, so sleep 0.2 seconds */
- current->timeout = jiffies + HZ / 5;
- current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
- schedule();
- current->timeout = 0;
+ /* Windows 95 is not able to deliver answers
+ to FIND_NEXT fast enough, so sleep 0.2 seconds */
+ current->timeout = jiffies + HZ / 5;
+ current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
+ schedule();
+ current->timeout = 0;
#endif
- }

result = smb_trans2_request(server, command,
0, NULL, 12 + mask_len + 2, param,
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.031 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site