From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien?= Aptel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] CIFS: use tcon_ipc instead of use_ipc parameter of SMB2_ioctl Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 Message-ID: <874lnduadl.fsf@suse.com> References: <20180117172200.3221-1-aaptel@suse.com> <20180119171258.14244-1-aaptel@suse.com> <20180119171258.14244-3-aaptel@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: linux-cifs , Steve French To: Pavel Shilovsky Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Pavel Shilovsky writes: > Is it safe to try IPC share only and not retry with any normal tcon in > the case of ENOTCONN like the current code does? ENOTCONN was returned when SMB2_ioctl(with_ipc=true) was called and no ipc was available so I believe it is functionnaly equivalent currently. Unless other NT_STATUS mapped to ENOTCONN can be returned in that scenario but I don't think it can. While rebasing this on top of Steve's for-next I've realized since IPC is not part of the tcon list anymore it's not automatically reconnected. I have to do more testing :( -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)