search for: caambk

...g to make sense now. In order to fix it.... I note that the lower level calls are wrapped in dir.c - eg dptr_SeekDir(...) wraps SeekDir(...) this might allow for some code to use array indexes instead of NFS cookies as noted by Chris Chilvers here for the 3.10 kernel: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAmbk-e-YQAPo6QyNB0aJyc9qzUShmEC+x5eTR7wqp1ABWADsg at mail.gmail.com/T/ > On the older 3.10 kernel, this was not an issue as the 3.10 kernel uses > the array index position for the offset value instead of the NFS cookie. I am not yet 100% familiar with all the code but perhaps we could store an a...

...x it.... > I note that the lower level calls are wrapped in dir.c - eg > dptr_SeekDir(...) wraps SeekDir(...) > this might allow for some code to use array indexes instead of NFS cookies > as noted by Chris Chilvers here for the 3.10 kernel: > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAmbk-e-YQAPo6QyNB0aJyc9qzUShmEC+x5eTR7wqp1ABWADsg at mail.gmail.com/T/ First I think we need to understand how broken telldir()/seekdir() is over NFS in this case. Do they work at all ? An alternate fix would be to change Samba to store the previously read filename on the STATUS_MORE_ENTRIES case (we...

...it.... > > I note that the lower level calls are wrapped in dir.c - eg > dptr_SeekDir(...) wraps SeekDir(...) > > this might allow for some code to use array indexes instead of NFS cookies > as noted by Chris Chilvers here for the 3.10 kernel: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAmbk-e-YQAPo6QyNB0aJyc9qzUShmEC+x5eTR7wqp1ABWADsg at mail.gmail.com/T/ > > > On the older 3.10 kernel, this was not an issue as the 3.10 kernel uses > > the array index position for the offset value instead of the NFS cookie. > > I am not yet 100% familiar with all the code but perh...

...9;t return us to the same position in the directory listing, then we are broken and will not return the complete list of files. This is what Ralph is saying when he says that NFS is broken w.r.t listing directories. What NFS server are you using ? This looks relevent: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAmbk-e-YQAPo6QyNB0aJyc9qzUShmEC+x5eTR7wqp1ABWADsg at mail.gmail.com/T/ Client then does findnext,

I'm trying to get to the bottom of where the normal directory functions differ in results for block storage compared to NFS. I created a short c script to look at the offsets generated for the directory when block storage backed in comparison to NFS backed. block storage backed are always positive: File: 5050, Offset: 9213006461214587617 File: 6567, Offset: 9218690536865144001 File: 4033,