On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:31:14 -0500 Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It looks like it's time? If so, what should I set the date to?
>
> Looks good to me. I'd suggest that we change the printk's to refer to a
> release version and state that it will be removed in for 2.6.26 (or
> 2.6.27
On Feb 5, 2008 2:18 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> > Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
> >
El Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:18:05 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> struct smb_fattr root;
> int ver;
> void *mem;
> + static int warn_count;
> +
> + if (warn_count < 5) {
> + warn_count++;
> + printk(KERN_EMERG "smbfs is deprecated
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:18:05 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> > Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
> deprecated, and then remove them 2 releases later. That seems like a
> sensible
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
deprecated, and then remove them 2 releases later. That seems like a
sensible policy
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:18:05 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
El Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:18:05 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
struct smb_fattr root;
int ver;
void *mem;
+ static int warn_count;
+
+ if (warn_count 5) {
+ warn_count++;
+ printk(KERN_EMERG smbfs is deprecated and will be
On Feb 5, 2008 2:18 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:41:03 -0500 Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to be
deprecated, and
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:31:14 -0500 Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like it's time? If so, what should I set the date to?
Looks good to me. I'd suggest that we change the printk's to refer to a
release version and state that it will be removed in for 2.6.26 (or
2.6.27 if
On Jan 30 2008 19:23, Steve French wrote:
>> On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
>> >I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
>> >than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
>> > For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the
"Steve French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There are four common issues with mounting to these very old servers:
> 1) remembering to mount specifying lanman security (sec=lanman)
> 2) remembering to specify the netbios name of the server on mount
> (which is often not be the same as its tcp
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:30:55 -0600
"Steve French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 7:13 PM, Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200
> > > > > > > In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm.
> > > > > > > Even todays sold NAS-boxes
Steve French [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are four common issues with mounting to these very old servers:
1) remembering to mount specifying lanman security (sec=lanman)
2) remembering to specify the netbios name of the server on mount
(which is often not be the same as its tcp name) - we
On Jan 30 2008 19:23, Steve French wrote:
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
On Jan 30, 2008 7:34 PM, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't
> > > aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to
> > > do. Some
On Jan 30, 2008 8:23 PM, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 31 2008 12:33, David Newall wrote:
> >Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
> >>> than a few restrictions
On Jan 31 2008 12:33, David Newall wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
>>
>>> I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
>>> than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
>>> For mounts to Windows98 note
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
>
>> I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
>> than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
>> For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
>> netbios
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't
> > aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to
> > do. Some extra warning for those users would be nice.
> And many users will start
On Jan 30, 2008 7:13 PM, Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200
> > > > > > In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm.
> > > > > > Even todays sold NAS-boxes (often running anchient
> > > > > > samba-2.x.x) work only with smbfs on the client side.
I
On Jan 30, 2008 1:05 PM, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
> >I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
> >than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
> > For mounts to Windows98 note that
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:34:12PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Some of our older products use smbfs, but our newer stuff (RHEL5 and
> up) have smbfs disabled. Fedora has had smbfs disabled for quite some
> time as well. I've heard very few complaints (though maybe they're just
> not getting to
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:34:12PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> > > Guenter Kukkukk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> > Guenter Kukkukk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > > > I
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> Guenter Kukkukk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > > I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
> > > completely replacing
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
Guenter Kukkukk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
> > completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed
> > removing smbfs back in 2005
Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
> completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed removing
> smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being unmaintained.
>
> CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb Steve French:
> I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
> than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
> For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
> netbios name on the mount (since
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
>I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
>than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
> For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
>netbios name on the mount (since it is not
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
netbios name on the mount (since it is not the same as the DNS name).
In your example your
On Jan 29 2008 00:08, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
>completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed removing
>smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being unmaintained.
>
>CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained, and
On Jan 29 2008 00:08, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed removing
smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being unmaintained.
CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained, and it's
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
netbios name on the mount (since it is not the same as the DNS name).
In your example your
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
netbios name on the mount (since it is not the
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb Steve French:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
netbios name on the mount (since it
Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed removing
smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being unmaintained.
CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained,
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
Guenter Kukkukk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we discussed
removing smbfs back in 2005 due to
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
Guenter Kukkukk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS for
completely replacing the
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
Guenter Kukkukk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
I remember that there
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:34:12PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
Guenter Kukkukk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
Some of our older products use smbfs, but our newer stuff (RHEL5 and
up) have smbfs disabled. Fedora has had smbfs disabled for quite some
time as well. I've heard very few complaints (though maybe they're just
not getting to me).
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:34:12PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:58:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan
On Jan 30, 2008 1:05 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to
On Jan 30, 2008 7:13 PM, Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:47:17 +0200
In addition, cifs cannot completely replace smbfs atm.
Even todays sold NAS-boxes (often running anchient
samba-2.x.x) work only with smbfs on the client side.
I am not convinced
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't
aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to
do. Some extra warning for those users would be nice.
And many users will start whining
On Jan 31 2008 12:33, David Newall wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the file times via utimes).
For mounts to Windows98 note that you have to specify the server
netbios name on the
On Jan 30, 2008 8:23 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 31 2008 12:33, David Newall wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 30 2008 12:53, Steve French wrote:
I have mounted to Windows98 a few months ago with no problems (other
than a few restrictions like you can't set the
On Jan 30, 2008 7:34 PM, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't
aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to
do. Some extra warning
51 matches
Mail list logo
