[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z889RfnudqMc5r_e@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:28:05 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: kth <kangtaeho2456@...il.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix typo from smpfs to smbfs in filesystem
documentation
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:41:29AM +0800, kth wrote:
> The documentation incorrectly referred to 'smbfs' as 'smpfs'. This change corrects that typo to ensure the documentation is accurate and not misleading.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kang Taeho <kangtaeho2456@...il.com>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst
> index 6ee70465c0ea..9239067563a1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/highuid.rst
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ What's left to be done for 32-bit UIDs on all Linux architectures:
>
> Other filesystems have not been checked yet.
>
> -- The ncpfs and smpfs filesystems cannot presently use 32-bit UIDs in
> +- The ncpfs and smbfs filesystems cannot presently use 32-bit UIDs in
ncpfs doesn't exist any more; it was removed many years ago. And the
smbfs that is referred to here was replaced by cifs many years ago.
I have a feeling the entire highuid document should be deleted. It
describes a transition that happened 25 years ago.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists