On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:36:01 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Pity -- would have been sort of nice to always use a 3 field version number since the stable kernels will need that, but...not my call. Either way, patch is fine. -- 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
