From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 24 11:50:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5CC16A432 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:50:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bp@vertex.kz) Received: from relay.vertex.kz (relay.vertex.kz [212.19.129.142]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94AF43D5C for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:50:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bp@vertex.kz) Received: from lion.butya.kz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.vertex.kz (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AEBF5BAE; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:50:36 +0600 (ALMT) Received: from relay.vertex.kz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.vertex.kz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21295B2A; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:50:35 +0600 (ALMT) Received: by relay.vertex.kz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D869F5A6A; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:50:35 +0600 (ALMT) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:50:35 +0600 From: 'Boris Popov' To: Frank Reid Message-ID: <20051124115035.GO6770@vertex.kz> References: <20051124071828.GL6770@vertex.kz> <20051124114122.D6DB843D75@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051124114122.D6DB843D75@mx1.FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Cc: 'Craig Rodrigues' , freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FW: mount_smbfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:50:56 -0000 On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:39:19AM -0500, Frank Reid wrote: > > > Try to backout rev 1.16 of sys/fs/smbfs/smbfs_smb.c and tell me > > if this helps. This patch was heavily tested on NT-like machines but may > > break with w9x family. > > Unfortunately, just backing out that one change ("ctx->f_flags |= > SMBFS_RDD_EOF | SMBFS_RDD_NOCLOSE;") did not correct this problem. By the > way, I did mention that the W2K/XP machine shares still load and access > properly on the same machine, right? It's just this one Win ME machine > share that doesn't any longer. Well, there wasn't any other major changes except one done by Craig on Wed Nov 16 02:26:25 2005 UTC, which fits into "week or so". I don't see right now how it can break ME machines. Hm, only if it inadvertently changes order of some operations. -- Boris Popov http://rbp.euro.ru