Commit ff273cb8 authored by Steve French's avatar Steve French

[CIFS] Remove obsolete comment

Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven French <smfrench@gmail.com>
parent 9ffc5412
...@@ -592,11 +592,7 @@ cifs_hardlink(struct dentry *old_file, struct inode *inode, ...@@ -592,11 +592,7 @@ cifs_hardlink(struct dentry *old_file, struct inode *inode,
spin_lock(&old_file->d_inode->i_lock); spin_lock(&old_file->d_inode->i_lock);
inc_nlink(old_file->d_inode); inc_nlink(old_file->d_inode);
spin_unlock(&old_file->d_inode->i_lock); spin_unlock(&old_file->d_inode->i_lock);
/*
* BB should we make this contingent on superblock flag
* NOATIME?
*/
/* old_file->d_inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; */
/* /*
* parent dir timestamps will update from srv within a * parent dir timestamps will update from srv within a
* second, would it really be worth it to set the parent * second, would it really be worth it to set the parent
...@@ -606,7 +602,9 @@ cifs_hardlink(struct dentry *old_file, struct inode *inode, ...@@ -606,7 +602,9 @@ cifs_hardlink(struct dentry *old_file, struct inode *inode,
} }
/* /*
* if not oplocked will force revalidate to get info on source * if not oplocked will force revalidate to get info on source
* file from srv * file from srv. Note Samba server prior to 4.2 has bug -
* not updating src file ctime on hardlinks but Windows servers
* handle it properly
*/ */
cifsInode->time = 0; cifsInode->time = 0;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment