On 12/06/2010 09:08 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:35:06 +0100 > Bernhard Walle <bernhard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Zitat von Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> >>> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
