Re: smbfs Oops with Linux 2.6.3

From: Zwane Mwaikambo
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 16:42:29 EST

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Urban Widmark wrote:

> Shouldn't "wq" be accessible to both smb_newconn and smb_proc_ops_wait?
> I'd put it in the "server" struct and then have smb_newconn() do this
> when it is done:
> wake_up_interruptible_all(&server->ops_wq);

Oops, yes my code was horribly broken, the previous patch will only avoid
the oops since readdir won't be NULL, but is still fundamentally wrong.

> I don't know enough about wait_queue's to understand why it would work
> otherwise. The only thing I can think of is that the condition is true
> before it actually waits on anything.
> Since install_ops isn't the last thing done in smb_newconn perhaps a
> different variable should be used to signal that a new connection is
> there. I would suggest using "server->state == CONN_VALID" and then move
> that assignment to the end of smb_newconn.
> If you are in cleanup mode the following changes should probably be made:
> server->rcls replaced by req->rq_rcls
> server->err replaced by req->rq_err

Sure thing, i'll fix it up.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at