From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 5 22:43:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8AB16A420 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:43:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98A843D49 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:43:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k25MhYiS034564; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:43:35 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id k25MhWIG034563; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:43:32 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:43:32 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Gavin Atkinson Message-ID: <20060305224332.GG21025@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200602211455.01731.root@solink.ru> <06022119291516.78019@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> <1140606294.59408.8.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20060224183435.GA66559@comp.chem.msu.su> <20060305200015.I89137@ury.york.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060305200015.I89137@ury.york.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: Bachilo Dmitry , stable@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang Subject: Re: mount_smbfs trouble after cvsup 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, 05 Mar 2006 22:43:45 -0000 On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:01:31PM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > >>Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why > > > >The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way > >kernel modules get their options. > > > >>NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs > >>between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of > >>people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares > >>and it's "just worked". > > > >This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours > >truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused > >the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last. > >Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd > >like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the > >default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks! > > I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the > framework cleanup, it effectively was default. Thank you for telling your opinion! I'm preparing the respective commit to HEAD right now, going to MFC it after a short period of testing by CURRENT users. -- Yar