From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suresh Jayaraman Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] cifs: wait indefinitely for responses Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:20:47 +0530 Message-ID: <4D10CCD7.80807@suse.de> References: <1292598497-29796-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1292598497-29796-8-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: smfrench-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1292598497-29796-8-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 12/17/2010 08:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > The client should not be timing out on individual SMB requests. Too much > of the state between client and server is tied to the state of the > socket. If we time out requests and issue spurious disconnects then that > comprimises data integrity. > > Instead of doing this complicated dance where we try to decide how long > to wait for a response for particular requests, have the client instead > wait indefinitely for a response. Also, use a TASK_KILLABLE sleep here > so that fatal signals will break out of this waiting. > > Later patches will add support for detecting dead peers and forcing > reconnects based on that. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > --- > fs/cifs/transport.c | 110 ++++++++------------------------------------------- > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-) > Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman