mount_smbfs trouble after cvsup
yar at comp.chem.msu.su
Sun Mar 5 22:43:45 UTC 2006
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.
More information about the freebsd-stable