From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 23 01:20:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D3E1065677 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:20:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892518FC0C for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:20:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9571C56FC; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:20:06 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: M8jNGJmEh+hJ4jrS3YQjyXhd+myNgFbfceVkku1V5/nz 1227403206 Received: from [192.168.124.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE9F627CC8; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:20:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4928AFC3.40703@incunabulum.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:20:03 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Atkinson References: <4926BDE5.5020708@icyb.net.ua> <20081121161629.GJ99866@uriah.heep.sax.de> <1227286112.40570.12.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <1227286112.40570.12.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joerg Wunsch , FreeBSD Stable , Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: smbmsg(8): slave address confusion? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:20:07 -0000 Gavin Atkinson wrote: > I believe this is the case, yes. See for example, PR kern/100513. It > appears that some frivers treat the adfdress one way, and others treat > it the other. > I can confirm this from recent commercial work I had to do involving smb(4). thanks, BMS