On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM Aurélien Aptel aaptel@suse.com wrote:
Stefano Brivio sbrivio@redhat.com writes:
/* BB eventually switch this to SMB2 specific small buf size */
*request_buf = cifs_small_buf_get();
if (smb2_command == SMB2_SET_INFO)
*request_buf = cifs_buf_get();
else
*request_buf = cifs_small_buf_get(); if (*request_buf == NULL) { /* BB should we add a retry in here if not a writepage? */ return -ENOMEM;
@@ -3720,7 +3723,7 @@ send_set_info(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon,
rc = cifs_send_recv(xid, ses, &rqst, &resp_buftype, flags, &rsp_iov);
cifs_small_buf_release(req);
cifs_buf_release(req); rsp = (struct smb2_set_info_rsp *)rsp_iov.iov_base;
Small and large bufs use different mempools, shouldn't the release func match the get func?
Yes
Stefano, Can you respin your patch? I am hoping this patch addresses a bug I have been seeing