On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 03:18, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:09:05PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 17:28, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > > Well, that is not the case, since for the underlying filesystem it is usually a
> > > very valid name. The fact is just t
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:09:05PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 17:28, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > Well, that is not the case, since for the underlying filesystem it is usually a
> > very valid name. The fact is just that they would resolve to different targets.
> > The Samba
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 17:28, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:16:38PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Well, I think making the MSDFS resolving code pluggable would be a good
> > thing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > > MSDFS works by the server attempting saying 'not here' to a file open.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:16:38PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Well, I think making the MSDFS resolving code pluggable would be a good
> thing.
Agreed.
> > > MSDFS works by the server attempting saying 'not here' to a file open.
> > > The client then asks there server for 'where is is then',
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:58, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:24:22PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:08, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > > I do not think that I should solve it with MSDFS itself, since that is a very
> > > specific Microsoft thing. Adding @sys
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:24:22PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:08, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > I do not think that I should solve it with MSDFS itself, since that is a very
> > specific Microsoft thing. Adding @sys resolution into that code would be a bit
> > messy, and c
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:08, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:43:08PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:24, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:08:26PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > Well, I think that doing so would be *very* dange
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:43:08PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:24, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:08:26PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > Well, I think that doing so would be *very* dangerous. For one, what
> > > are you doing to do with those
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:20:59PM -0500, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> Could the passed filenames and pathnames in the functions in vfs_ops be made
> non-const? The use of a VFS module as transparent layer includes the ability
> to change the passed data (as suggested from the comments in vfs.h), but wi
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 13:20, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> Could the passed filenames and pathnames in the functions in vfs_ops be made
> non-const? The use of a VFS module as transparent layer includes the ability
> to change the passed data (as suggested from the comments in vfs.h), but with
> the cons
Could the passed filenames and pathnames in the functions in vfs_ops be made
non-const? The use of a VFS module as transparent layer includes the ability
to change the passed data (as suggested from the comments in vfs.h), but with
the const qualifiers there, you cannot legally change the passed n
11 matches
Mail list logo
