![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Eloy A. Paris wrote: > I compiled a fresh 2.1.x kernel with smbfs support as a module (to be > able to debug more easyly). Then I mounted a share from a Samba server > one time with -f 1755 and the other with just -f 755. Guess what? > Well, with -f 1755 I get "SMBFS: Win 95 bug fixes enabled" as expected > and when I do a "ls -l" of the directory contents I see all the dates > screwed up. When mounting with -f 755 I don't get the kernel message > and the dates are OK. > > Oh, I forgot to mention that I compiled the kernel without enabling > CONFIG_SMB_WIN95. Last time when I had the problems with the dates I > had this compiled in. > > So my question now is: is it normal to have this kind of behavior of > having incorrect dates when enabling the Windows 95 fixes for > non-Windows 95 servers? Please read smbfs.txt in Documentation/filesystems. It explicitly states not to enable the Win 95 bug fixes if you're using other SMB servers on your network. Regards, Bill | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41 [W:0.229 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||