Re: [PATCH] cifs: Add information about noserverino

[Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>]

On 12/06/2010 09:08 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:35:06 +0100
> Bernhard Walle <bernhard-X9USDgGjgfuzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Zitat von Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>:
>>
>>>
>>> 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