* J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:03:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > I'm not going to be able to recut the patch until the weekend;
> > do you just want to remove the 'err' in your copy and feed this
> > to the main tree with some of the
* J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:03:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
snip
I'm not going to be able to recut the patch until the weekend;
do you just want to remove the 'err' in your copy and feed this
to the main tree with some of the rest
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:37:00 EDT, Peter Staubach said:
> There are a lot of ways to discover who is throwing trash
> at your system other than the kernel printing messages.
>
> Tools such as tcpdump and tethereal/wireshark make much better
> tools for this purpose.
Given the number of times
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:19:07 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:12:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said:
> > > I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
> > > printk's. One misbehaving
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:37:00AM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
> There are a lot of ways to discover who is throwing trash
> at your system other than the kernel printing messages.
>
> Tools such as tcpdump and tethereal/wireshark make much better
> tools for this purpose.
The use of printk's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said:
Looks like a reasonable idea to me, thanks! Any objection to just
calling it "svc_printk" instead of "svc_printkerr"?
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, J. Bruce Fields said:
Looks like a reasonable idea to me, thanks! Any objection to just
calling it svc_printk instead of svc_printkerr?
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One misbehaving
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:37:00AM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
There are a lot of ways to discover who is throwing trash
at your system other than the kernel printing messages.
Tools such as tcpdump and tethereal/wireshark make much better
tools for this purpose.
The use of printk's and
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:19:07 EDT, J. Bruce Fields said:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:12:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, J. Bruce Fields said:
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One misbehaving client could
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:37:00 EDT, Peter Staubach said:
There are a lot of ways to discover who is throwing trash
at your system other than the kernel printing messages.
Tools such as tcpdump and tethereal/wireshark make much better
tools for this purpose.
Given the number of times I've had
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:12:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said:
> > I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
> > printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot of noise in the
> > logs.
>
> I shouldn't
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, "J. Bruce Fields" said:
> Looks like a reasonable idea to me, thanks! Any objection to just
> calling it "svc_printk" instead of "svc_printkerr"?
>
> I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
> printk's. One misbehaving client could
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:03:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
> > printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot of noise in the
> > logs.
>
> Yeh; I wasn't going
* J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
> > error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
> >
> > svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709: unknown
* J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709: unknown version (3
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:03:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* J. Bruce Fields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot of noise in the
logs.
Yeh; I wasn't going to change
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, J. Bruce Fields said:
Looks like a reasonable idea to me, thanks! Any objection to just
calling it svc_printk instead of svc_printkerr?
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:12:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:43:33 EDT, J. Bruce Fields said:
I also wonder whether these shouldn't all be dprintk's instead of
printk's. One misbehaving client could create a lot of noise in the
logs.
I shouldn't have to
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
> error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
>
> svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709: unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
>
> I've seen machines
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709: unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
I've seen machines which
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your comments,
* Randy Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
in reply to my patch:
> > +static int
> > +svc_printkerr(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, const char* fmt,...)
>
> add:
> __attribute__ ((format (printf, 2, 3)))
> so that the compiler can check the args list.
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your comments,
* Randy Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
in reply to my patch:
+static int
+svc_printkerr(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, const char* fmt,...)
add:
__attribute__ ((format (printf, 2, 3)))
so that the compiler can check the args list.
Added.
+
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:26:30 +0100 Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
> error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
>
> svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709 :unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
>
> I've seen machines
Hi,
This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709 :unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
I've seen machines which get bunches of unknown version or similar
errors from time to time, and
Hi,
This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709 :unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
I've seen machines which get bunches of unknown version or similar
errors from time to time, and
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:26:30 +0100 Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds the address of the client that caused an
error in sunrpc/svc.c so that you get errors that look like:
svc: 192.168.66.28, port=709 :unknown version (3 for prog 13, nfsd)
I've seen machines which
26 matches
Mail list logo
