Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I would put in the commit msg that this requires recent kernel.
Agreed.
> We should probably merge kernel code first so we can reference it here
> in the commit msg, and say in the man page when did the kernel change.
Agreed.
> There can be cases where cifs-utils is more recent than kernel and
> mount.cifs will pass all the ip instead of trying them before passing
> the good one to the kernel but since it's an old kernel it won't try
> them all.
Good point! Yes, we should handle both cases.
> We could add an option to enable new behavior or check the kernel
> version from within mount.cifs.. thoughts?
I don't like the idea of checking the version because the running kernel
might not have the expected patches.
Perhaps a new option would be better... I'll think more about it.
> Paulo Alcantara <pc@xxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> +static void set_ip_params(char *options, size_t options_size, char *addrlist)
>> +{
>> + char *s = addrlist + strlen(addrlist), *q = s;
>> + char tmp;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + for (; s >= addrlist && *s != ','; s--);
>> + tmp = *q;
>> + *q = '\0';
>> + strlcat(options, *options ? ",ip=" : "ip=", options_size);
>> + strlcat(options, s + 1, options_size);
>> + *q = tmp;
>> + } while (q = s--, s >= addrlist);
>> +}
>
> I think you should write this in a clearer way and comment, this is hard
> to read.
That's horrible, indeed. I'll definitely make it readable in next
version.
> I was going to say should we return errors if we truncate the ips, but
> none of the mount.cifs.c code checks for truncation so I guess we can
> ignore.
IIRC, yes.
