CIFS extensions for UNIX
jn at it.swin.edu.au
Sun Apr 7 17:48:01 GMT 2002
Urban Widmark wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, John Newbigin wrote:
>>I have updated my patches to work against linux 2.4.18. I have had some
>>problems with my patches failing fsx-linux. For now I have reverted to
>>using smb_proc_trunc (which is a SMBwrite call). This works but leads
>>me to beleive that there may be a problem with truncates using
> Certainly possible. Other thoughts:
> The order has to be:
> smb_proc_trunc 
I think I was retaining that order. I though someone who knows ther
server side of the code would confirm either way that the setaddr_unix
was either correct or broken. At the moment the driver works so the
only disadvantage is if there is a trunc at the same time as another
property change (which may not be possible?) they will be done with 2
calls instead of the one.
> You should also be aware that there is one case where fsx still fails in
> vanilla 2.4.18. It is a bit harder to trigger than the ones that have been
> fixed. I have the details somewhere outside my head, but it was something
> regarding fsx assuming that the fs is more unixy than it is ...
> (close semantics?)
Does this apply to samba servers? You posted some comment about a
problem that only applies to windows servers.
>  which may implement truncate as something other than SMBwrite if it
> wants to, see the trunc64 variant for LFS (2.5.6), or if setattr_unix can
> truncate then that may be used as well. It is not defined to be a SMBwrite
>>The kernel patch for linux 2.4.18 is here
> Are these different from the links you posted on Mar 12th? Looking at the
> diff dates says no, but perhaps these are the wrong links?
No, they are the same. I did not get any response from the last message
so I sent them again.
I also have a new patch now for the redhat 2.4.9 kernel but it is not
fully tested yet.
Information Technology Innovation Group
Swinburne University. Melbourne, Australia
More information about the samba-technical