From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C534C4CEC5 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F22020830 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731650AbfILNfK (ORCPT ); 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