3.0.0 smbmount and 64 bit filesystems?
dave-gnus at bfnet.com
Tue Nov 11 23:48:59 GMT 2003
Me> Why is CIFS a better option?
Christopher> Point is, CIFS and SMB are not necessarily different
Christopher> things. That's why we say "CIFS VFS" and "SMBFS" when
Christopher> referring to the client filesystem products. These are
Christopher> two tools that implement the same features (in different
Thanks for preventing me from causing mass confusion on the planet :-)
Since I intended to refer to the client filesystem products, I
rephrase my email as follows:
Why is CIFS VFS a better option? I've tried a CIFS VFS patched
kernel, but I can't get anything to mount. The mount.cifs command
segfaults, and stracing it shows:
mount("//server/share", "/tmp/dir", "cifs", 0xc0ed0040, 0x10002960) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
The man page says:
EINVAL Source had an invalid superblock. Or, a remount was attempted,
while source was not already mounted on target. Or, a move was
attempted, while source was not a mount point, or was '/'. Or,
an umount was attempted, while target was not a mount point.
I'm certain that none of these things is the case. I can mount the
same //server/share on other linux machines running SMBFS. This is
not a remount. This is not a move or an umount.
So this strikes me as a buggy CIFS VFS filesystem. I would love to
find out how to make it work. In the meantime I'll have to figure out
how to kludge SMBFS to support 64-bit.
More information about the samba-technical