[Bug 1010047] New: displaced headline at fcoeadm -s (see bug 1008745)
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047 Bug ID: 1010047 Summary: displaced headline at fcoeadm -s (see bug 1008745) Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: x86-64 OS: SUSE Other Status: NEW Severity: Minor Priority: P5 - None Component: Other Assignee: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com Reporter: holger@fam-schranz.de QA Contact: qa-bugs@suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Related to the Bug 1008745 the headline from the output of fcoeadm-s is depend to length and therefor by longer insert (devname of the ethx) displaced. See the output screen in bug 10008745. Best regards Holger -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
Holger Schranz
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
Johannes Thumshirn
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c1
--- Comment #1 from Holger Schranz
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c3
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Thumshirn
Hello,
if this issue is fixed, how can we close it? Or what is necessary? Any comment?
It's still on the list, but there are much more important things to do than this cosmetic fix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c4
--- Comment #4 from Holger Schranz
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
Johannes Thumshirn
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
Alynx Zhou
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c5
Hannes Reinecke
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c6
Lee Duncan
Lee, can you have a look?
Sure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c7
Lee Duncan
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c8
--- Comment #8 from Holger Schranz
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c9
--- Comment #9 from Lee Duncan
Hello Mr. Duncan,
Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have a configuration to test your fix. I will do it as soos as possible.
And thanks to spend the effort to fix it.
Best regards
Holger
No problem. You can actually configure most NICs to test this -- I did. I just got lldpad and fcoemon running, then set up eth0, then got status on it. Let me know when you're ready to test, and I'll create a test RPM and attach it to this bug. Note that fcoe-utils has been updated in factory, as well, to version 1.0.33, but I believe the changes were all bug fixes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c10
Lee Duncan
Hello Mr. Duncan,
Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have a configuration to test your fix. I will do it as soos as possible.
And thanks to spend the effort to fix it.
Best regards
Holger
I'm going to go ahead and merge this if you can't test it. I can't have the fix sitting around forever -- I'll forget or misplace it. And I'm pretty sure this fixes the problem, as I tested it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c11
--- Comment #11 from Holger Schranz
(In reply to Holger Schranz from comment #8)
Hello Mr. Duncan,
Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have a configuration to test your fix. I will do it as soos as possible.
And thanks to spend the effort to fix it.
Best regards
Holger
I'm going to go ahead and merge this if you can't test it. I can't have the fix sitting around forever -- I'll forget or misplace it. And I'm pretty sure this fixes the problem, as I tested it.
Hello Mr. Duncan, Sorry again. I leave the company by the end of September and therefor a lot of things are todo. I also sure that you already fixed the problem. Thanks a lot. Best regards Holger -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c12
Lee Duncan
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c13
Lee Duncan
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c14
Michal Kubeček
I am happy to fix this now, but not sure what the maximum length of a NIC can be these days. The code assumes 7 characters long, but in your case "enp0s16f0" is 9 characters long, hence the misalignment for the rest of the line.
In researching this, it looks like 15 or 16 bytes is the maximum, so I'll fix that.
The limit has been IFNNAMSIZ = 16 since ever but that includes the trailing null byte, leaving 15 characters for the actual name. Recent kernels (5.5 and newer - but we also have a backport in SLE15-SP2 and openSUSE-15.2) also allow assingning zero or more alternative names (altnames) to a network device which can be as long as ALTIFNAMSIZ = 128, again including the trailing null byte. These are usually not shown in command output but userspace can use them to identify a network device. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c16
--- Comment #16 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010047#c17
--- Comment #17 from Swamp Workflow Management
participants (2)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com
-
bugzilla_noreply@suse.com