[linux-cifs-client] Re: New Proxy Unix CAP

[Steve French]

Nevermind 0x203 was the next free setfsinfo  - 0x20c is the next free
setfileinfo level
I did fix the typo in the name of the transport encryption cap


On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Steve French <smfrench at gmail.com> wrote:
> arggh - just made a typo - will fix.  Jeremy's note reminded me -
>  0x20c is the next free one.

>  >  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Sam Liddicott <sam at liddicott.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  * Jeremy Allison wrote, On 24/04/08 17:14:
>  >  >
>  >  >  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  * Sam Liddicott wrote, On 21/04/08 09:44:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  * James Peach wrote, On 20/04/08 18:33:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  If so, could you please add documentation to
>  >  > <http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions>, or a page that is
>  >  > linked from there.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  It seems that 0x003 was already taken:
>  >  >
>  >  > http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions
>  >  >
>  >  > says:
>  >  > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203 Call to set up an encryption
>  >  > context.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > I think it was erroneously in File Info (and Path Info) levels and then
>  >  > just moved.
>  >  >
>  >  > Steve, I guess we need 0x204, or shall I change the docs to squash on
>  >  > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION?
>  >  >
>  >  >  No, SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION is used in current 3.2 code
>  >  > as a SETFSINFO sub code. 0x204 is used 0x20C is the next unused
>  >  > SETFILEINFO sub code.
>  >  >
>  >  >  I think I want an FSINFO sub-code not a FILEINFO sub-code, so 0x204 is OK?
>  >  >
>  >  >  Or am I confused?
>  >  >
>  >  >  Sam
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  Thanks,
>  >
>  >  Steve
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Thanks,
>
>  Steve
>



-- 
Thanks,

Steve