Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262420AbUCMIPV (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:15:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263060AbUCMIPV (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:15:21 -0500 Received: from fungus.teststation.com ([212.32.186.211]:25099 "EHLO fungus.teststation.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262420AbUCMIPT (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:15:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:14:49 +0100 (CET) From: Urban Widmark X-X-Sender: puw@cola.local To: Zwane Mwaikambo cc: Adam Sampson , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: smbfs Oops with Linux 2.6.3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1036 Lines: 31 On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > The difference must be that in a the inode data for the root inode is not > > considered current when the second ls runs, but I don't understand why the > > readdir is printed before the getattr. > > I don't understand why to expect the getattr before the readdir, perhaps > you can elaborate for me? smb_readdir smb_revalidate_inode smb_refresh_inode smb_proc_getattr server->ops->getattr server->ops->readdir The first ls should find the inode out-of-date (smb_readdir probably isn't the first call, but that doesn't matter) because it is the first user. The second ls is run shortly after and should find the inode to be up-to-date. I'm not sure it is important at all, it just wasn't what I expected. /Urban - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/