Re: SMB2 implementation

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:15:43 -0600
> Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 1) Agreed
>>
>> 2) agreed
>>
>> 3) I was waiting to look at this until we start looking at batch
>> oplock, assuming that that code would have to change a lot to handle
>> batch oplock
>>
>> 4) I think the general idea of the change to the "need_reconnect" to a
>> "serial number" (a glorified counter) which you discussed at
>> Connectathon makes sense.
>>
>
> Excellent on all of the above. I may be able to hack up a patchset for
> #4 when I get time.

I would also like to remove many of the checks that look like
         if (ses) && (if ses->server)
since in almost all of those cases we are guaranteed to have valid ses
and ses->server

-- 
Thanks,

Steve