| Message ID | 20231030110020.45627-1-sprasad@microsoft.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/14] cifs: print server capabilities in DebugData | expand |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:30 PM <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com> > > In the output of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData, we do not > print the server->capabilities field today. > With this change, we will do that. We already print session capabilities in DebugData. How is it different from that.?
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:04 PM Bharath SM <bharathsm.hsk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:30 PM <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com> > > > > In the output of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData, we do not > > print the server->capabilities field today. > > With this change, we will do that. > > We already print session capabilities in DebugData. How is it > different from that.? These are capabilities at the server level. That one is at session level. Actually, there's tcon capabilities as well, which I think we should also dump in DebugData. I'll submit a revised version for that as well.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:10 PM Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:04 PM Bharath SM <bharathsm.hsk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:30 PM <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com> > > > > > > In the output of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData, we do not > > > print the server->capabilities field today. > > > With this change, we will do that. > > > > We already print session capabilities in DebugData. How is it > > different from that.? > > These are capabilities at the server level. That one is at session level. > Actually, there's tcon capabilities as well, which I think we should > also dump in DebugData. > I'll submit a revised version for that as well. Actually, it looks like that's already done in smb2_dump_share_caps. It would be even better to print server capabilities in the symbolic form similar to how it's done there. But this works too. I think we can do a follow up patch for that if needed. > > -- > Regards, > Shyam
Made a minor change "Server capability: " --> "Server capabilities:" to make it consistent with the places we print session and tcon capabilities in the DebugData Let me know if any objections On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:00 AM <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com> > > In the output of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData, we do not > print the server->capabilities field today. > With this change, we will do that. > > Signed-off-by: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com> > --- > fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c b/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c > index 76922fcc4bc6..a9dfecc397a8 100644 > --- a/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c > +++ b/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c > @@ -427,6 +427,8 @@ static int cifs_debug_data_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > if (server->nosharesock) > seq_printf(m, " nosharesock"); > > + seq_printf(m, "\nServer capability: 0x%x", server->capabilities); > + > if (server->rdma) > seq_printf(m, "\nRDMA "); > seq_printf(m, "\nTCP status: %d Instance: %d" > -- > 2.34.1 >
diff --git a/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c b/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c index 76922fcc4bc6..a9dfecc397a8 100644 --- a/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c +++ b/fs/smb/client/cifs_debug.c @@ -427,6 +427,8 @@ static int cifs_debug_data_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) if (server->nosharesock) seq_printf(m, " nosharesock"); + seq_printf(m, "\nServer capability: 0x%x", server->capabilities); + if (server->rdma) seq_printf(m, "\nRDMA "); seq_printf(m, "\nTCP status: %d Instance: %d"