Re: First snapshot of a proposed set of fixes to make 2.0.34

Marty Leisner (
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:32:13 PST

> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > I'd appreciate feedback on these - especially on the Alpha platform so I can fix any further
> > > problems they may have caused someone and submit this on to Linus for 2.0.34
> >
> > Are there any planned fixes for smbfs? I understand that some of the
> > problems we see
> > are fixed in 2.1 but we do need this is the stable 2.0.
> Indeed. I just noticed that my 2.0.32 system is screwing up
> timestamps on files on an NT server. I had never noticed this
> before on 2.0.29 or 2.0.30. Is it possible that something has
> changed with smbfs since 2.0.29, or did I just never notice
> the problem before?
> Bill Hawes suggested going to 2.1.79 as a solution (which
> I don't mind doing) but I will probably run into resistance
> from management and that is always frustrating.
> Regards,
> Eric Hoeltzel

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 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.

The Feynman problem solving Algorithm
        1) Write down the problem
        2) Think real hard
        3) Write down the answer
                Murray Gell-mann in the NY Times