Re: smbfs Oops with Linux 2.6.3

From: Zwane Mwaikambo
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 20:56:36 EST

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Urban Widmark wrote:

> Not quite there yet.
> I have added a sleep(10); in send_fs_socket (smbmount) to give me time to
> send other requests to the fs. Here is what I get when I run the mount and
> two 'ls' in parallel:

Thanks for testing it, i'll have another go at it.

> 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?


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