Received: by 2002:a25:c593:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp2234507ybe; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPqUF59xf0da+3wN7nkoA2an0IOaXiLsUo39teLNo9XOOYuUqhg+tB0kRjpX3Sr+76S5JO X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c347:: with SMTP id j7mr38563705edr.173.1568295495878; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:38:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1568295495; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=NZk0m2iAJdMGLg/wbuGLmuXJVtl+H2l5FNgj69ZSDz9Th46WBjmZrxNGGhX2WAOIzk BY9g+sAFOiawZMxt2NsiUSnSARdCJDeIi5Ry3Y64dXu4pbGAYp7cHIyaaBPQzy7e/vGv 3gIaBy9Ehxmnp+pbrmDE303XS8sznvzFz9vcFTk+jlnOZZ7XDUAbAkaRotj3qx6GY4o+ ncaqVJB15oZgYMwaHg0knRbTBghRDmYV1brfmDz+IfSgqRG/JyxdbkTFBbWPxx/TFwXZ 65TTYhBRV+6QOzgPB4MpdWRpRWD3nO+KxMtUXLL63a7tiDUl14o1twDB/7CtG/Dmr2/L V3zg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from; bh=eDJT4yYTJt3IA/AZDBV1inQjO+hACnmccvJOw9jIMc8=; b=j+PA27Wjb+1RM35d6z1/E3yHGTzC0HUN0wZyANguMnqjia8bIUqW1NbEBMM1V6rFnr EgLlovVDqBSdgPqyJ/lGXreg61XFWAKnNvjJLnvAWTtiJoZwu7xbzpv1e7Mk+OhDVb8m WPakjMHPaYlVFORV/kkde7RY13rU+3Uv6QOvEcMYWt8pco5CkhXOCiNiNY2r2Qnr5GFq YBEnB+DB+CX/OCGfGFkmHDKrmuAb9mXnaxueTmrMLS8Yg2iiQZKEy9oliKx1g6NmopMq 2MoGZTWdcBF0+UWG2f1OVo19T83dkIKfkkkWQYql8S5kcg6wRGNt4/71fdmOsre1Z762 Bz3w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y10si13020979ejj.116.2019.09.12.06.37.45; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:38:15 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731650AbfILNfK (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:35:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57126 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731283AbfILNfK (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:35:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D2E806A42; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.176.1] (ovpn-64-2.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.64.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389E85D9E5; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:35:09 +0000 (UTC) From: "Benjamin Coddington" To: "Trond Myklebust" 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: In-Reply-To: References: <0089DF80-3A1C-4F0B-A200-28FF7CFD0C65@oracle.com> <429B2B1F-FB55-46C5-8BC5-7644CE9A5894@redhat.com> <8D7EFCEB-4AE6-4963-B66F-4A8EEA5EA42A@redhat.com> <57185A91-0AC8-4805-B6CE-67D629F814C2@redhat.com> <20190912131359.GB31879@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.67]); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org 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