* 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 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 I've
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 clien
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
[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 misbehav
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 ha
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 crea
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
* 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 versi
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 wh
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 wh
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 whil
13 matches
Mail list logo
