On Thu 2008-05-29 13:38:03 -0400, Christian Perrier wrote: > However, is that bug *different* from #483507?
I think they are different. Choosing brl vs. nobrl should provide
some difference in behavior (otherwise, why have the option?).
This report (#483502) is about how the behavior doesn't seem to change
during a remount intended to flip that switch (though it does change
based on a clean unmount/mount cycle). This seems to me like a
problem with the code that handles local mounting and remounting.
#483507 is about how the behavior associated with brl seems to violate
the semantics expected of a Linux filesystem. This could as easily be
a problem with the samba server on the other side of the network
connection as it could be a problem with the client-side CIFS code.
So these seem like different concerns to me, though perhaps my
nit-picking comb has too fine a tooth ;)
> I think the only option we have is to forward it upstream with all
> information you provided.
Will you forward that info upstream or should i? I'm not even sure
who upstream should be in this case, so i'm hoping you (or other samba
DDs) have better relationships with them than i do. Of course I'm
happy to stay in the loop on the communications if i can help debug
things further, but don't know where to take it next.
Thanks for the prompt response,
--dkg
pgpHbXxfVV51P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
