[cifs-protocol] RE: erroneous references to little-endian
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Jul 10 17:42:18 MDT 2009
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 09:23 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote:
> We will continue to work to resolution on the broader issue of how to
> handle bit fields in the documentation. Your feedback is much
> appreciated there. For this specific issue, in general, for
> custom-marshaled fields you should see a bit field that follows the
> RFC convention where the high bit of the first byte to hit the wire is
> in column 0, and the low bit of the last byte to hit the wire is in
> column 31 (so that the bits are shown from left-to-right in the order
> they naturally appear over the network).
Your two statements are inconsistent, and not consistent with what the
documentation does. Do you mean to say that I can expect the above in
future, or that you claim the documentation does the above?
If the bits were numbers, for little-endian numbers, such that bit 0,
representing integer 1 appeared a the left (the little end), and that
the numbers in the heading increased 0..31 left-to-right, above the
value such that for it's natural natural number representation (as
indicated by the stated endianness) that value == n^2, then I would be
> We are going back through the documentation to ensure that custom
> marshaled fields have the appropriate specification for endianness.
Alternately, can you please point me at the RFC that indicates both bit
numbering such that (value != n^2) where n is the described bit number,
and where bits are ordered in a different order to bytes.
Microsoft's documentation is the only place, ever, that I have seen this
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/attachments/20090711/09afa8ba/attachment.bin
More information about the cifs-protocol