search for: cifs_revalidate_cach

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "cifs_revalidate_cach".

Did you mean: cifs_revalidate_cache
2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes: > I found something interesting in /proc/fs/cifs/Stats. Notice the > "QueryDirectories > Failed" number. This keeps increasing as along as `ls > -lR` is running. That's interesting indeed. The verbose logs and network trace would tell us more. -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97
2019 Feb 15
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
...cifs_sync_mid_result: cmd=6 mid=11909 state=4 Feb 15 05:41:09 prod-backoffice kernel: [57077.630005] /build/linux-Y38gIP/linux-4.15.0/fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to cifs_small_buf_release Feb 15 05:41:09 prod-backoffice kernel: [57077.634944] /build/linux-Y38gIP/linux-4.15.0/fs/cifs/inode.c: cifs_revalidate_cache: revalidating inode 28312117 Feb 15 05:41:09 prod-backoffice kernel: [57077.642045] /build/linux-Y38gIP/linux-4.15.0/fs/cifs/inode.c: cifs_revalidate_cache: inode 28312117 is unchanged Feb 15 05:41:09 prod-backoffice kernel: [57077.649148] /build/linux-Y38gIP/linux-4.15.0/fs/cifs/inode.c: CIFS VFS...
2020 Sep 25
1
cifsacl not working
...cl.c: sid_to_id: Can't map SID os:S-1-5-21-xxx-1115 to a uid Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/cifsacl.c: sid_to_id: Can't map SID gs:S-1-5-21-xxx-513 to a gid Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/inode.c: looking for uniqueid=3276811 Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/inode.c: cifs_revalidate_cache: revalidating inode 3276811 Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/inode.c: cifs_revalidate_cache: inode 3276811 is new Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/dir.c: CIFS VFS: leaving cifs_lookup (xid = 1916) rc = 0
2020 Sep 25
2
cifsacl not working
On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. > It's still hard to say at this point. > > cifs.idmap logs