3.0.0 smbmount and 64 bit filesystems?

David Wuertele 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
Christopher> ways).

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 mailing list