Re: [PATCH] cifs: remove "legacy" parm from CIFSSMBQPathInfo

[Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/28/2010 11:17 PM, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Shirish Pargaonkar
> <shirishpargaonkar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@suse.de> wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2010 09:12 PM, Steve French wrote:
>>>> What is the code flow then on Windows9x, OS/2 or in the EOPNOSUPP
>>>> case? �Seems strange that we don't retry with legacy or in the case
>>>> where the dialect (or previous call) shows that we don't support the
>>>> infolevel.
>>>
>>> If CIFSSMBOpen fails, the callers seem to be fall back to legacy open using
>>> SMBLegacyOpen().
>>>
>>> cifs_open()
>>>
>>> � � � ...
>>> � � � �if (tcon->ses->capabilities & CAP_NT_SMBS)
>>> � � � � � � � �rc = CIFSSMBOpen(xid, tcon, full_path, disposition,
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � desiredAccess, CREATE_NOT_DIR, &netfid, &oplock, buf,
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � cifs_sb->local_nls, cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � & CIFS_MOUNT_MAP_SPECIAL_CHR);
>>> � � � �else
>>> � � � � � � � �rc = -EIO; /* no NT SMB support fall into legacy open below */
>>>
>>> � � � �if (rc == -EIO) {
>>> � � � � � � � �/* Old server, try legacy style OpenX */
>>> � � � � � � � �rc = SMBLegacyOpen(xid, tcon, full_path, disposition,
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � �desiredAccess, CREATE_NOT_DIR, &netfid, &oplock, buf,
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � �cifs_sb->local_nls, cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags
>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �& CIFS_MOUNT_MAP_SPECIAL_CHR);
>>> � � � �}
>>>
>> This is a general comment but should cifs client be using (server)
>> dialect specific set of smb commands
>> and those smb commands specific info levels instead of sending a
>> command and trying downlevel / legacy
>> if that command failed with "operation not supported"?
> 
> We can do the former for smb2, but not for cifs unfortunately.
> 
> For cifs there are lots of cases where a dialect doesn't support an
> infolevel it should (or even viceversa).

So that means this patch is applicable to CIFS as is, right?


-- 
Suresh Jayaraman