Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:41:29AM +0800, kth wrote: >> The documentation incorrectly referred to 'smbfs' as 'smpfs'. This change corrects that typo to ensure the documentation is accurate and not misleading. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kang Taeho <kangtaeho2456@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst >> index 6ee70465c0ea..9239067563a1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst >> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ What's left to be done for 32-bit UIDs on all Linux architectures: >> >> Other filesystems have not been checked yet. >> >> -- The ncpfs and smpfs filesystems cannot presently use 32-bit UIDs in >> +- The ncpfs and smbfs filesystems cannot presently use 32-bit UIDs in > > ncpfs doesn't exist any more; it was removed many years ago. And the > smbfs that is referred to here was replaced by cifs many years ago. > > I have a feeling the entire highuid document should be deleted. It > describes a transition that happened 25 years ago. That seems like the right thing to do - it's essentially somebody's "todo" list from 2000, which lacks relevance now. Kang, would you like to submit a patch to simply remove the file instead? Thanks, jon
