- Thursday, July 31, 2014

openafs@conference.openafs.org

Thursday, July 31, 2014< ^ >

Room Configuration

Room Occupants

GMT+0
[13:42:49] kaduk joins the room
[13:56:38] <kaduk> What's the motivation for the -1001 return value in CallPreamble?  Could some other value (say, from a com_err table) be used in its stead?
[13:57:57] <kaduk> (It appears to date back to the original IBM import, in our tree.)
[15:18:22] deason joins the room
[15:38:25] <kaduk> deason: there's a question from me in the scrollback
[15:39:11] <deason> the callpreamble thing? I have no idea
[15:50:58] <kaduk> Yeah, callpreamble.  Thanks
[16:02:51] <Jeffrey Altman> -1001 dates back to AFS 2.x and perhaps earlier.
[17:16:17] ballbery leaves the room
[17:16:45] ballbery joins the room
[17:18:48] ballbery leaves the room
[17:18:49] ballbery joins the room
[17:29:50] <kaduk> Is there harm in changing it?  There's not a huge amount of motivation, just an abstract desire to get it into the range of a com_err table we control.
[17:32:44] <Jeffrey Altman> there are a number of negative error codes returned by the file server
[17:33:08] <kaduk> Sigh.
[17:33:27] <Jeffrey Altman> My guess is that were all added for debugging purposes decades ago and were shipped
[17:33:36] <kaduk> Seems eminently plausible.
[17:33:56] <kaduk> It was kind of nice to know exactly where the problem was happening and all.
[17:36:39] <kaduk> -31 on a short rx_Writev, sure, why not.
[18:21:25] meffie joins the room
[18:38:35] <kaduk> Oof, how embarassing.
[18:38:56] <ballbery> heh, I was wondering about that
[18:42:04] <kaduk> I was tricked because we still retain the use_524 logic which does have to request 1DES.
[19:08:10] meffie leaves the room
[21:07:10] Jeffrey Altman leaves the room
[21:07:18] Jeffrey Altman joins the room
[22:22:35] ballbery leaves the room
[22:23:20] ballbery joins the room
[22:33:00] deason leaves the room
[23:50:06] kaduk leaves the room