On Wed, 23 May 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> Urban Widmark wrote:
>
> > The only other way I have found so far to get it to return the right file
> > size is to do a "seek-to-end". That still means an extra SMB but it avoids
> > the very painful "sync to disk".
> >
> > Fortunately the seek is only
Urban Widmark wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
>
> > That is annoying, because it heavily slows down bulk transfers of small
> > writes, like automatically unzipping a new mozilla build from the linux box to
> > the windows box. Every write of say 100 bytes is implemented as
>
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> That is annoying, because it heavily slows down bulk transfers of small
> writes, like automatically unzipping a new mozilla build from the linux box to
> the windows box. Every write of say 100 bytes is implemented as
>
> send write req
> recv write ac
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> Hello Urban,
>
> I've been playing around a while with that patch and so far could not find any
> problems anymore. But I've noticed some other annoying behaviour, which might
Good.
> be caused by trying to work around the initially reported bug where
Urban Widmark wrote:
> On 7 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > It has code to do that in smb_revalidate_inode(), but it may be that
> > something else refreshes the inode size _without_ doing the proper
> > invalidation checks. Or maybe Urban broke that logic by mistake while
> > fixing the
> No, I broke it when copying the ncpfs dircache code.
>
> That code will reuse an old inode if it already exists (and thus also
> any pages attached to it), which is what I wanted and should be fine
> except that it needs to invalidate_inode_pages() if something changed.
>
> Xuan and James, you
On 7 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It has code to do that in smb_revalidate_inode(), but it may be that
> something else refreshes the inode size _without_ doing the proper
> invalidation checks. Or maybe Urban broke that logic by mistake while
> fixing the other one ;)
No, I broke it when c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Xuan Baldauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>it does not fix|work around the bug completely:
>
>1. windows: Create a file, e.g. with 741 bytes.
>2. linux: "ls -la" will show you the file with the correct size (741)
>3. linux: read the file into your smbfs cache (e.g.
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> it does not fix|work around the bug completely:
>
> 1. windows: Create a file, e.g. with 741 bytes.
> 2. linux: "ls -la" will show you the file with the correct size (741)
> 3. linux: read the file into your smbfs cache (e.g. "less file")
> 4. windows: a
Urban Widmark wrote:
> Hello all
>
> This patch have been building up for a while, without reaching some
> undefined level of readiness. I would like some feedback from other smbfs
> users before submitting this for 2.4.4-something. Particularly from people
> mounting win9x shares.
>
> * win9x
10 matches
Mail list logo
