On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:04:14 -0400 Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:35:20 -0400 > > scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > @@ -41,12 +42,8 @@ > > > #define MAX_SES_INFO 2 > > > #define MAX_TCON_INFO 4 > > > > > > -#define MAX_TREE_SIZE (2 + MAX_SERVER_SIZE + 1 + MAX_SHARE_SIZE + 1) > > > +#define MAX_TREE_SIZE (2 + MAX_SERVER_SIZE + 1 + CIFS_MAX_SHARE_LEN + 1) > > > #define MAX_SERVER_SIZE 15 > > ^^^^^^^ > > This looks wrong too. IIUC, that should be the max length of the > > "server" portion of the field. The fact that MAX_TREE_SIZE is pretty > > long is likely what papers over this... > > > > The userland helper uses NI_MAXHOST for this field, but that's not > > defined in the kernel. Perhaps this should be given a name like > > CIFS_NI_MAXHOST, and expanded to the same size as the mount helper uses > > (1025)? > > > > -- > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I didn't touch that because I really wasn't sure either. Wouldn't we > want to make that 1024 and add 1 for the null terminator in-line to be > consistent? Other than that, I'm on board with that idea. > Yeah, sounds reasonable. -- 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
