lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] cifs: Add information about noserverino
    On 12/06/2010 09:08 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:35:06 +0100
    > Bernhard Walle <bernhard@bwalle.de> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Zitat von Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I'm still not sure I like this patch however. It potentially means a
    >>> lot of printk spam since these things have no ratelimiting. It also
    >>> doesn't tell me anything about which server might be giving me grief.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe this should be turned into a cFYI?
    >>
    >> Well, if I see it in the kernel log, it doesn't matter if it's info or
    >> something else.
    >>
    >>> The bottom line though is that running 32-bit applications that were
    >>> built without -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 on a 64-bit kernel is a very bad
    >>> idea. It would be nice to be able to alert users that things aren't
    >>> working the way they expect, but I'm not sure this is the right place
    >>> to do that.
    >>
    >> Well, but there *are* such application (in my case it was Softmaker Office
    >> which is a proprietary word processor) and it's quite nice if you know
    >> how you can workaround it when you encounter such a problem. That's all.
    >>
    >
    > Sure...but this problem is not limited to CIFS. Many modern filesystems
    > use 64-bit inodes. Running this application on XFS or NFS for instance
    > is likely to give you the same trouble. You just hit it on CIFS because
    > the server happened to give you a very large inode number.
    >
    > If we're going to add printk's for this situation, it probably ought to
    > be in a more generic place.
    >

    By generic place, did you mean at the VFS level? I think at VFS level,
    there is little information about the Server or underlying fs and this
    information doesn't seem too critical that VFS should warn/care much about.

    May be sticking to a cFYI along with Server detail is a good idea?


    --
    Suresh Jayaraman


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-09 12:43    [W:7.060 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site