From: suzuki Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc5 kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:26:10 +0530 Message-ID: <46E61FEA.9010800@in.ibm.com> References: <46E121B8.4080105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6bffcb0e0709071656o6881fa17y61818a9733293a4c@mail.gmail.com> <1189289549.13713.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <46E4FC2F.6040105@in.ibm.com> <1189458228.6634.4.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Michal Piotrowski , neilb@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kamalesh Babulal , bfields@fieldses.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, ffilz@us.ibm.com, Poornima To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUxpD-00006t-2G for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:58:11 -0700 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IUxpH-0002na-HQ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:58:15 -0700 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8B4xUR0014473 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:59:30 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8B4w5q2541448 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:58:05 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8B4w4KX022937 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:58:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1189458228.6634.4.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:41 +0530, suzuki wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the >> following. >> >> The pathconf() request gets a reply with : >> >> pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1 >> pathinfo.max_link = 255 >> >> Is this really an expected answer from a server for a proper connection >> ( for mount requests on an exported dir) ? Is there something that needs >> to be fixed at server side ? > > I assume that this is with my patch applied? No. This is without your patch. So I am trying to debug why the server is sending a -1 ! (which sounds like an error ?) Thanks Suzuki K P IBM Linux Technology Centre Yes: as long as the kernel > sets NAME_MAX to 255, then the above is expected behaviour. > > Trond > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs