| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alphis
n00b
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 70
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: Cifs |
 |
|
There is a known problem with CIFS lower than around 1.4 that involves files that are saved causing programs that saved them to need to reload the file as it has been "changed on disk". This problem has apparently been fixed in all non ancient versions of cifs but I can't help but notice that the latest net-fs/mount-cifs is version 1.10.
Any ideas as to when this might be updated in portage? This file issue is causing all kinds of annoying problems.
Thanks.
[ebuild R localhost username # emerge -vp net-fs/mount-cifs
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!] net-fs/mount-cifs-3.0.28 0 kB
username@localhost ~ $ mount.cifs -V
mount.cifs version: 1.10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tarpman
Veteran
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 1083
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
1.10 is newer than 1.4.
_________________
Saving the world, one kilobyte at a time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alphis
n00b
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1.4x > 1.10
When are we getting the non ancient version? I can't seem to get it from source without having to rebuild the kernel (they mention only kernel source patches).
Any ideas? This lack of proper CIFS support is causing all kinds of annoying problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cyrillic
Watchman
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 7313
Location: Groton, Massachusetts USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alphis wrote: | 1.4x > 1.10
When are we getting the non ancient version? |
I think you are confusing the userspace mount.cifs program with the kernel's cifs module.
This is what I get for a version number.
| Code: | # modinfo cifs
filename: /lib/modules/2.6.27.2/kernel/fs/cifs/cifs.ko
version: 1.54
... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pappy_mcfae
Watchman
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 5999
Location: Pomona, California.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
What kind of annoying problems? I use CIFS daily, and the only thing I notice it that it's a lot easier to work with samba on my Gentoo boxes than it is to work with the net shares on the Windoze boxes. I move files, stream video and audio files over CIFS, and so on. I see nothing wrong with my setup in the least.
Blessed be!
Pappy
_________________
This space left intentionally blank, except for these ASCII symbols. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alphis
n00b
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys please try to understand. I'm using the cifs from portage, NOT the kernel. modinfo cifs fails because there is no such module.
Again, I am using cifs from portage.
the version result I got was from mount.cifs -V which returns the version of cifs it uses, not the version of gentoo's cifs package.
The problems I'm having are due to the VERY WELL KNOWN TIMESTAMP issue. A random search yields such a topic herehttp://forum.soft32.com/linux2/Saving-text-file-SMB-share-file-changed-ftopict40827.html
Every single time I save a file (using the IDE) my IDE complains that it has just changed on disk just after saving it. This is annoying, and unnecessary. From what I understand this was fixed in a later version of cifs which portage doesn't seem to have yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cyrillic
Watchman
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 7313
Location: Groton, Massachusetts USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alphis wrote: | | Guys please try to understand. I'm using the cifs from portage, NOT the kernel. |
OK, I understand.
... now stop doing that, and use cifs that is provided by the kernel ! 
Actually, you need both, the kernel part to access the data, and the userspace part to mount and unmount the filesystem.
Here is a snippet from the manpage.
| man 8 mount.cifs wrote: | | This command only works in Linux, and the kernel must support the cifs filesystem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jcat
Veteran
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1337
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alphis wrote: | 1.4x > 1.10
|
BTW You originally said 1.4 > 1.10 not 1.4x > 1.10
Numerically (using absolute values), you are correct, but I think you'll find in some packages revision control that 1.4 < 1.10
Don't forget that some revisions are expressed as even 1.10.4 or 3.2.49-5, neither of these are real numbers!!
So be careful of your assumptions 
Cheers,
jcat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Networking & Security
