Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@redhat.com>
To:     "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     bfields@fieldses.org, tibbs@math.uh.edu, linux@stwm.de,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        km@cm4all.com, chuck.lever@oracle.com
Subject: Re: Regression in 5.1.20: Reading long directory fails
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:35:08 -0400
Message-ID: <E3D5BD21-8D9D-4EBE-A607-5D4BC9692C63@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <db42c87ba2c5b0852ad42ba51792ee67ab036a37.camel@hammerspace.com>
References: <DD6B77EE-3E25-4A65-9D0E-B06EEAD32B31@redhat.com>
 <0089DF80-3A1C-4F0B-A200-28FF7CFD0C65@oracle.com>
 <429B2B1F-FB55-46C5-8BC5-7644CE9A5894@redhat.com>
 <F1EC95D2-47A3-4390-8178-CAA8C045525B@oracle.com>
 <8D7EFCEB-4AE6-4963-B66F-4A8EEA5EA42A@redhat.com>
 <FAA4DD3D-C58A-4628-8FD5-A7E2E203B75A@redhat.com>
 <B8CDE765-7DCE-4257-91E1-CC85CB7F87F7@oracle.com>
 <EC2B51FB-8C22-4513-B59F-0F0741F694EB@redhat.com>
 <c8bc4f95e7a097b01e5fff9ce5324e32ee9d8821.camel@hammerspace.com>
 <57185A91-0AC8-4805-B6CE-67D629F814C2@redhat.com>
 <20190912131359.GB31879@fieldses.org>
 <db42c87ba2c5b0852ad42ba51792ee67ab036a37.camel@hammerspace.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12 Sep 2019, at 9:25, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 09:13 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> (Unless I'm missing something.  I haven't looked at this code in a
>> while.  Though it was problem me that wrote it originally--apologies
>> for
>> that....)
>>
>
> The function itself is fine. It was just the name I'm objecting to,
> since we're actually moving the last 'n' bytes in the message in order
> to be able to read them.

Ok, that's helpful guidance since it saves me from doing a stable fix and
then an attempt to rename/optimize/breakitagain.

I'll just rename it at the same time as the fix.. but now I wonder if that
can potentially mess up other fixes that might retroactively get sent to
stable.  Maybe I'm over thinking it.  I guess I'll send the fix and then the
rename separately, and maintainers can squash at will.

Ben