From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/content output [Was Re: stuff] Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:15:15 +1000 Message-ID: <18471.35859.781495.449872@notabene.brown> References: <20080509192319.GG1907@fieldses.org> <20080509204807.GI1907@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Aurelien Charbon , Brian Haley , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?utf-8?B?5ZCJ6Jek6Iux5piO?= To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37943 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949AbYELAP1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 May 2008 20:15:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: message from J. Bruce Fields on Friday May 9 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday May 9, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > Um, sorry about that subject line. I liked it ;-) Gave a bit of an informal feel.... >=20 > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:23:19PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > From: J. Bruce Fields > >=20 > > Commit f15364bd4cf8799a7677b6daeed7b67d9139d974 ("IPv6 support for = NFS > > server export caches") dropped a couple spaces, rendering the outpu= t > > here difficult to read. > >=20 > > (However note that we expect the output to be parsed only by humans= , not > > machines, so this shouldn't have broken any userland software.) > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields > > Cc: Aurelien Charbon > > Cc: Neil Brown > > Cc: Brian Haley > > Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =E5=90=1B(Ih=1B$(O$h=8B=B1=E6=98=8E=1B(B <= yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> > >=20 > > --- > > net/sunrpc/svcauth_unix.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >=20 > > I just noticed this while doing some debugging at Connectathon. I'= m > > undecided whether to take it seriously. Does anyone other than me = use > > these /content files? I suppose it should probably go into 2.6.26 = but > > not 2.6.25.x. I don't think any code uses them, but it's very good to be able to look at them when something doesn't seem to be working as expected. But I don't think the patch would apply to 2.6.25. 'git name-rev' on the offending commit say: f15364bd4cf8799a7677b6daeed7b67d9139d974 tags/v2.6.26-rc1~1083^2~47 which means it was in 2.6.26-rc1 but not the previous release. NeilBrown