From patchwork Wed Dec 4 02:53:08 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: NeilBrown X-Patchwork-Id: 13893157 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCAD71FA4 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733281101; cv=none; b=RENVWgkBUfLO/aMQu3jj8r36UnJ/yj9RdWVFW3t+PhK0nRr6r31e59zTlWgFypwwuLQuF4yv6JgYCgc1ta6Pggo3KnePiYGeGMF0BYvnariWBdMywNxzHB3cH9G3M7qHT4EwgGJcqBclX33BGfvU9OvJD4y+vIu+/HsylQrc2FY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733281101; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BJeLVTG+DhM5VrZ+f569Swjb2wuLvEhXynPlJX6gFqw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=NWhNmdaBY92TSE+ZMIvJG/VzgzVd11NKsWjfUf+GroVrDPLj7Q48Go+PHr19c5H8Ecdg8Icng1xpDGSsFPzsI+x0sk0PbVa29XJFKTBJHnnzja+ezf9Jk6reNEkAiKUiZ0uoNimWN4b1oYBRMZo1QGGwHbuZjv8rLwYXUK0FEqY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=hh7QVpG1; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=7cMdBDVi; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=cxIfFM+n; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=DsE49Pi5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="hh7QVpG1"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="7cMdBDVi"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="cxIfFM+n"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="DsE49Pi5" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80BD210FA; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:58:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1733281096; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uZ7N39TbhDZtoREtu223BKcOhX9LP21i4/8z0V/Lhks=; b=hh7QVpG1xz7AOLDkHNjTS1aR3EiABDkvKgHmzY++bZFkMZ5GABSeZC/SNZjLOfgKRNB3e/ y1WZRI3dPDCkofrHR+LVAZ4OPWi6UQOO3NTId4wEvyyoZsYNhkk1rPac3YxfslNTUzKyre /DPWqs+iInpu0JgsCNtCFyETiVKAR7I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1733281096; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uZ7N39TbhDZtoREtu223BKcOhX9LP21i4/8z0V/Lhks=; b=7cMdBDViY9EgYbsgbiKhxOAb8gKkAWrJo0UTwx+FWkTSLQJwFnd5Rn1JmOvhgAPs8VMMkD 8UHQ+wHJHtBNUeDA== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1733281094; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uZ7N39TbhDZtoREtu223BKcOhX9LP21i4/8z0V/Lhks=; b=cxIfFM+nCm4EUN6xEzkHWFFNs22Px5MQPqDLSWVY2aR+rq7JufgFy23G4DV5k99myzHWts o2jc9yybg0mCpoyfIUEM/6JnQ3+DxAwcZhYlepoKNEn37vCxOUr9+2UcHSCmGdPDGVOQr3 5ZMyi7RekBUpgW45tfyYkoNZ5c/Kps4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1733281094; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uZ7N39TbhDZtoREtu223BKcOhX9LP21i4/8z0V/Lhks=; b=DsE49Pi5mPhquAFb2UBIo6sbQIWZKtrRG/q96pQAYg51IlTdnhuy4iIMUpbM4wABS3uHap HqDqkhvJlgT6FrAA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F0E139C2; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 6vfDAkXFT2dVBwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 04 Dec 2024 02:58:13 +0000 From: NeilBrown To: Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker Cc: David Disseldorp , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/2] NFS - fix some _maxsz and _sz #defines Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:53:08 +1100 Message-ID: <20241204025703.2662394-1-neilb@suse.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -2.80 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.80 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_MISSING_CHARSET(0.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.999]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:mid,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Level: The first patch fixes some _maxsz that are now wrong since a patch of mine which changed for format of NFSv4.0 open-owners. I think this inconsistency might have been easier to avoid if the #define was closer to the code that it describes. So the second patch moves most of these #defines close to the code. That requires moving all the "encode" function after the "decode" functions. So maybe the second patch is too intrusive to be worth it - it is just an RFC patch. The first patch is much less intrusive. Thanks, NeilBrown [PATCH 1/2] NFS: fix open_owner_id_maxsz and related fields. [PATCH 2/2] NFS: move _maxsz and _sz #defines to the function which