On 12/17/2010 08:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > We only want to force a reconnect to the server under very limited and > specific circumstances. Now that we have processes waiting indefinitely > for responses, we shouldn't reach this point unless a reconnect is > already in process. Thus, there's no reason to re-mark the server for > reconnect here. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > --- > fs/cifs/transport.c | 4 +--- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/transport.c b/fs/cifs/transport.c > index c41c9c4..f65cdec 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/transport.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/transport.c > @@ -374,10 +374,8 @@ sync_mid_result(struct mid_q_entry *mid, struct > TCP_Server_Info *server) > if (mid->midState == MID_REQUEST_SUBMITTED) { > if (server->tcpStatus == CifsExiting) > rc = -EHOSTDOWN; > - else { > - server->tcpStatus = CifsNeedReconnect; > + else > mid->midState = MID_RETRY_NEEDED; > - } > } > > if (rc != -EHOSTDOWN) {
Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
