Re: smbfs Oops with Linux 2.6.3

From: Urban Widmark
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 03:19:16 EST

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?


The first ls should find the inode out-of-date (smb_readdir probably isn't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

I'm not sure it is important at all, it just wasn't what I expected.


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