From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gionatan Danti Subject: Re: Problem with Samba re-share of a CIFS mount Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:09:47 +0100 Message-ID: <52FA676B.6070906@assyoma.it> References: <52F9EDA5.1020004@assyoma.it> <20140211103302.6d74b90d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <52FA46D5.8020904@assyoma.it> <20140211124536.5fdcb56f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , jmcd-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Gionatan Danti To: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140211124536.5fdcb56f-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:50:45 +0100 > Gionatan Danti wrote: > > The rationale is that windows servers always send a NumberOfLinks value > of '0' for directories. We have a hack in place that went in around a > year ago to work around that for (arguably broken) applications that > try to infer something about an inode that has a zero st_nlink value. > > There is no workaround. Either fix the application such that it doesn't > care or patch the kernel. I'll cc Jim since he did a fair bit of > looking at this several months ago. > > In truth though, resharing a cifs mount is probably not a great > solution. It sounds like the kind of setup that's going to end up being > fraught with cache coherency problems... Ok, I understand now :) Thank you very much, Jeff. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti-N44kj/XGErOonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org - info-N44kj/XGErOonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8