From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261455AbVAQVqS (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:46:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261458AbVAQVqR (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:46:17 -0500 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:3466 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261455AbVAQVqA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:46:00 -0500 Subject: Re: smbfs in 2.6.8 SMP kernel From: Alan Cox To: Brian Henning Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <41EC003B.7040606@strutmasters.com> References: <41EBD4E8.70905@strutmasters.com> <41EC003B.7040606@strutmasters.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1105984827.16096.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:41:28 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Llu, 2005-01-17 at 18:13, Brian Henning wrote: > Jesper Juhl wrote: > > If I remember correctly there was some smbfs breakage a few releases back > > - 2.6.8 sounds about right. I'd suggest you try a newer kernel like 2.6.10 > > or 2.6.11-rc1 and see if that works better. > > No luck with smbfs in 2.6.10 with SMP either; however, I discovered the > existence of CIFS (which I previously did not know about), and it > appears to work smoothly in place of smbfs. 2.6.10-ac fixes several problems with the later smbfs code but cifs is probably the better choice