Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: SMBFS: Question...

# Re: SMBFS: Question...

Pal-Kristian Engstad (engstad@intermetrics.com)
Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:29:46 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: Races in open(2)"
- Previous message: Andrew Derrick Balsa: "Re: kernel compile time comparison (2.0 vs 2.1 with 64MB)"
- Maybe in reply to: Shawn Leas: "SMBFS: Question..."
- Next in thread: Pal-Kristian Engstad: "Re: SMBFS: Question..."

Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> The command syntax changed in a way that makes a royal muck-up of
> the kernel automount. The fix to autofs is ugly at best (the new smbmount
> has several of the old parameters rolled into a single string parameter
> making it a royal pain to change the code) and would break backward
> compatibility in any case. As far as making sense goes... The change
> in syntax which totally hoses backward compatibility goes totally contrary
> to "making sense" no matter which way you shake it. You break programs
> and scripts and can't switch back and forth like many of us like to do.

True. I don't know why they did this. It seems to be two points of
concern.

1. Avoiding kernel bloat by putting the connection protocol outside the
kernel.

2. "Fixing" the problem occuring when the connection is timed out or
lost.
When this happens, the user program receives a signal and it will try
to reconnect.

> Considering the number of downloads I get for this script, I would
> say this problem seems to have struck a nerve with a number of people
> and really should be corrected... That is corrected as in fix the busted,
> incompatible syntax or provide a default compatibility mode.

Even worse, on my glibc system, the programs won't even compile. There
is
a major bug in <socketbits.h> which defines _LINUX_TYPES_H for some
reason,
causing <linux/types.h> to be excluded. Who on earth does things like
that?

I'd really like to see things straighten up. As the original coder of
smbfs,
I strongly reject and disapprove recent work by Volker Lendecke and
Andrew
Tridgell. What has been done is architectually unsound and will only
lead to
(user) problems. I do not think smbmount should be included in the Samba
package. It should be in the mount package.

Paal-Kristian Engstad.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: Races in open(2)"
- Previous message: Andrew Derrick Balsa: "Re: kernel compile time comparison (2.0 vs 2.1 with 64MB)"
- Maybe in reply to: Shawn Leas: "SMBFS: Question..."
- Next in thread: Pal-Kristian Engstad: "Re: SMBFS: Question..."