Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:11:31 -0500 | From | Bill Hawes <> | Subject | Re: First snapshot of a proposed set of fixes to make 2.0.34 |
| |
Marty Leisner wrote:
> Timestamping has been a problem ever since I remember with smbfs. > > Its also a problem that win95 and NT sends the reverse order of > dates/times in one of the queries. I haven't done an analysis recently > of 2.1.* and 2.0.* against NT and win95...
The main reason it's been so difficult to get the timestamp problems fixed in smbfs is that all of the MS SMB servers implement different subsets of the SMB protocol. That coupled with the incomplete or misleading documentation makes it a trial-and-error process to find working messages to get timestamps. Problems like the reversed order of date/time have to be discovered and worked around.
> The fact there has to be changes is one of the reasons I think having these > vendor specific file systems decoupled from the kernel not a bad idea... > Until recently, ntfs was decoupled, so I could update ntfs independently > fromn the kernel.
As long as the code is reasonably maintained I don't see a problem with having it in the kernel. SMB servers may be buggy, but once the problems are fixed thay stay fixed (at least until the next MS release). And you could still maintain NTFS separately from the kernel if you want to ..
Regards, Bill
| |