On 06/03/2011 06:41 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 > Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade >> to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c >> index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644 >> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c >> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c >> @@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) >> warned_on_ntlm = true; >> cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested. The default " >> "security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to " >> - "ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41"); >> + "ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1"); >> } >> ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg; >> > > Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? > Regardless... I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said: "Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning." I think 3.1 should be ok? > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > -- > 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 -- 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
