Patch for VFS Example

Dustin Oprea myselfasunder at gmail.com
Sun Feb 23 08:12:53 MST 2014


On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Dustin Oprea <myselfasunder at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Richard Sharpe
> > <realrichardsharpe at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dustin Oprea <myselfasunder at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > It looks like the "skel-opaque" VFS example needs to be fixed. I'm not
> >> > sure
> >> > how this function would've ever been called (
> >> > ("init_samba_module", "samba_init_module", and "init_module" seem to
> be
> >> > the
> >> > only names that would've ever been acceptable), and the name-type
> >> > literal
> >> > implies that this example was just copied from the "transparent"
> >> > example.
> >>
> >> There is some magic going on in an in-tree build ... however, the
> >> magic might have lost its power in the face of Samba 4.x.
> >>
> >> > Original:
> >> >
> >> > NTSTATUS vfs_skel_transparent_init(void)
> >> > {
> >> >     return smb_register_vfs(SMB_VFS_INTERFACE_VERSION,
> >> > "skel_transparent",
> >> > &skel_transparent_fns);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > Updated:
> >> >
> >> > NTSTATUS init_samba_module(void)
> >> > {
> >> >     return smb_register_vfs(SMB_VFS_INTERFACE_VERSION, "skel_opaque",
> >> > &skel_transparent_fns);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > This is probably obvious to anyone who has experience in building VFS
> >> > modules, but not so much for those of us who'd like to do a simple
> >> > example.
> >> >
> >> > Can I submit a patch?
> >> >
> >> > Also, the *http://www.samba.org/~sharpe/The-Samba-VFS.pdf
> >> > <http://www.samba.org/~sharpe/The-Samba-VFS.pdf>* document seems to
> no
> >> > longer be accurate in how to configure/build VFS modules. Can it be
> >> > updated
> >> > (I'd update it, but I don't see how I could), or is there a better
> >> > alternative somewhere else?
> >>
> >> If you send me what you think are the corrections I will see if I can
> >> find the time to verify them and update the document :-)
> >
> > I've attached a patch for the former.
> >
> > As for the latter (the doc fixes):
> >
> > - for the Git build, there is no longer a configure or configure.in in
> the
> > source3/ directory.
> > - for the package, the above applies, as well as the fact that there
> isn't a
> > Makefile.in, either (which is required by the instructions).
>
> Ahhh, sure. Samba 4 has moved to using waf ...
>
> > Also, I wasn't interested in using my own source-tree (I just wanted to
> get
> > something to build, to begin with, because it seems like it should be
> more
> > straight-forward than any other route), but that section mentions
> > autogen.sh, and none exists, in either the package or the Git tree.
>
> Hmmm, some updating is needed ...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Richard Sharpe
> (何以解憂?唯有杜康。--曹操)
>

Was that last patch going to be merged-in, to fix the example? I didn't get
any feedback.

Okay, so *waf* is being used. Based on the *waf* documentation*,* the
commands that I should be able to run should be defined in the wscript
module in whatever directory I'm currently running it from. The methods
that correspond to these commands have a context parameter ("ctx", by
convention). There are "configure" and "build" methods, but they are not
defined in this way (and fail as expected).

Do I need a specific version of *waf*? Is there an up-to-date walkthrough
on how to build, somewhere online? Obviously, *waf* is a more obscure build
tool, and I've never before used it.

Can you just get me going on this...?



Dustin


More information about the samba-technical mailing list